See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329203562

EFFECTS OF FORMING TOOLS AND PROCESS PARAMETERS ON SURFACE

ROUGHNESS IN INCREMENTAL SHEET FORMING, A REVIEW

Article  in  Advances in Science and Technology – Research Journal · September 2018

DOI: 10.12913/22998624/90223

CITATIONS READS

2 1,124

6 authors, including:

Haris Aziz Mirza Jahanzaib

University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila
26 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS    174 PUBLICATIONS   1,045 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmad Wasim Salman Hussain

University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila
84 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   663 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sand Casting View project

Aluminum Matrix Composites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mirza Jahanzaib on 27 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Advances in Science and Technology
Research Journal
Volume 12, No. 3, September 2018, pages 75–95 Review Article
DOI: 10.12913/22998624/90223

EFFECTS OF FORMING TOOLS AND PROCESS PARAMETERS ON SURFACE

ROUGHNESS IN INCREMENTAL SHEET FORMING

Umair Khalil1, Muhammad Haris Aziz1, Mirza Jahanzaib1,

Wasim Ahmad1, Salman Hussain1, Faisal Hafeez1

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology Taxila, Pakistan

1

e-mail: umairkhalil007@gmail.com, haris.aziz@uettaxila.edu.pk, mirza.jahanzaib@uettaxila.edu.pk,

wasim.ahmad@uettaxila.edu.pk, salman.hussain@uettaxila.edu.pk, faisalhafeez.ie@gmail.com

Received: 2018.03.18 ABSTRACT

Accepted: 2018.08.01 Literature has vastly advocated for incremental sheet forming as a significant process
Published: 2018.09.01 for formation of sheet metal components, because of its higher formability in compar-
ison with the rest of metal forming processes such as deep drawing and stamping. Due
to high formability of incremental sheet forming it becomes important to investigate
the main factors, influencing the quality of forming products. However, less attention
has been given to investigate the inconsistencies reflected often in determining the ef-
fect of multiple forming parameters and parametric interactions comprising of spindle
rotational speed and feed rate, tool size and sheet thickness, sheet thickness and step
depth. This study investigates the effect of various principal factors including tool
type, tool size, sheet thickness, spindle speed, feed rate, step increment including and
their respective interaction on surface roughness. Research data was collected by un-
dertaking extensive literature review of previous studies on incremental sheet forming
regarding surface quality. A quantitative one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
employed to analyze the significance and contribution of factors influencing surface
quality of sheet forming. The findings highlight the contribution of forming param-
eters and their combined interactions on surface roughness. Based on the empirical
findings, this study derives implications for the optimization of tool type, parametric
interactions among principal factors and their respective optimized operational range
for incremental sheet forming.

Keywords: ISF, quantitative survey, forming tools, forming parameters, surface

roughness.

INTRODUCTION for incremental sheet forming (ISF) products.

Surface finish is represented by the large scale
Sheet metal forming is as old as human waviness created by the tool path and the
learned the use of metals. With advance in sci- small scale roughness induced by large surface
ence and technology, forming methods have strains. The surface quality is influenced by
been evolved to form the desired complex several process parameters.
shape products and improving the strength Incremental sheet forming (ISF) removes the
of metals. For forming, mostly sheet metals use of punch and die. It is a die less process so,
are ductile in nature which could be formed friction between forming tool and sheet metal
up to a specific limit. Beyond this limit, frac- is less. In incremental sheet forming (ISF), de-
ture occurs which is consider as part failure. formation process is local in nature and gradual
Surface roughness is considered a weak point which highly influence the surface roughness.

75
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Research has been led into changes of basic in- 2010-2015, 829 researches were seen from 2015-
cremental sheet forming process. As an example, 2017. The rising trend about incremental sheet
others forming methods like hot incremental forming (ISF) has been observed in recent years.
sheet forming have been investigated in order to It is expected that the number will keep growing
reduce forming force. Duflou et al. [1] utilized in coming years.
laser mechanism in order to improve surface fin- Continuing too much publications pose a
ish and increase maximum wall angle of titanium challenge to researchers to sort the required pa-
aluminum alloy (TiAL6V4) blank. Similar tita- rameters for desired formability especially when
nium composite was heated with band radiators there are contradicting findings. For instance,
installed in sheet holder by Palumbo et al. [2] ob- Durante et al. [5] found that surface roughness
served the improvement in surface finish of that decreases as tool tip diameter increases on the
alloy. In recent years, use of electric incremental same site other tests demonstrated that tool di-
forming method have been investigated and ap- ameter has no significant effect on roughness as
plied to different materials such as aluminum al- Bagudanch et al. [6] and Deepak et al. [7] sug-
loy (AA 6061) by Adams et al. [3] and titanium gested that roughness decreased with increase in
aluminum alloy (TiAL6V4) used by Fan [4] with sheet thickness. From these, Gulati et al. [8] and
decrease in roughness. Due to its high formabil- Shanmuganatan et al. [9] discovered that rough-
ity, incremental sheet forming (ISF) is used in ness decreased with decrease in sheet thickness.
different industrial applications. For automotive However, ambiguity in experiment requires high
industry various asymmetric complex parts were attention to look at the results from the others pa-
made as rapid prototyping like reflective surface pers related to these parameters.
of head lights, service panels, and hood and fend- Most important inconsistencies that ob-
ers. , incremental sheet forming (ISF) can also be served while investigating the conclusions
used for non-automotive industrial applications were about the effect of forming tools and
like aerospace industries, biomedical applications other forming parameters. Li et al. [10] inves-
(ankle support, cranial plate) and appliances (so- tigated that ball tool has better surface finish
lar cooker) etc. than hemispherical tool on the other hand Du-
Due to its importance and significance lot of rante M. [5] demonstrated that hemispherical
research has been done and is going on. In order tools provide better surface finish as compared
to highlight its research trend, data base used for to ball tool. Similarly, Cawley et al. [11] ex-
search literature was google scholar and science amined that parabolic tools reduced roughness
direct. Key words employed were “incremental while inverse results of angular tools about sur-
sheet forming (ISF)”. We observed that 89 pub- face finish as Adams [12]. Therefore, there was
lications were carried out from 2000-2005, 457 a need to conduct a comprehensive literature
researches have been examined from 2005-2010, review on tool and other forming parameters to
1490 publications have been observed from investigate their effects on Roughness.

Fig. 1. Incremental sheet forming (ISF) research trend

76
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

HYPOTHESIS ria i.e. recent papers, original research, published

journal papers which included various incremen-
What does this survey say in regards to the tal sheet forming (ISF) process parameters ex-
impacts of forming tools and others process cluding review papers. Summary of papers that
parameters for enhancing surface roughness? were used in this survey database were process
Is there any difference or consistency between parameter values, tool and sheet material, biblio-
various conclusions? Different hypotheses have graphic information and results and discussion.
been drawn regarding the effect on roughness, Data is presented in tabular form and papers are
particularly how the variation of these process referenced. For simplicity and better understand-
parameters minimizing roughness? Following ing, authors name and numerical reference which
conclusions that are considered in this review will separate papers with same author and refer-
are given below as: ence. For example, Ham et al. [14] and Ham and
• Null hypothesis (Ho): Forming parameters jesweit [15]. In the data tables, if some informa-
have no effect on roughness. tion about any process parameter was not given,
• Alternate hypothesis (H1): At least one pa- then it is expressed as N/A in tables.
rameter has significant effect on roughness. Following conclusions that are considered in
• H1 (a): Tool types have significant effect on this review are given below as:
roughness. • Increasing process parameters value will de-
• H1 (b): Tool size has significant effect on crease roughness.
roughness. • Decreasing process parameters value will
• H1 (c): Sheet thickness has significant effect decrease roughness.
on roughness. • Optimized process parameters value will de-
• H1 (d): Step increment has significant effect crease roughness.
on roughness. • No effect of process parameters values on
• H1 (e): Feed rate has significant effect on roughness.
roughness. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used in
• H1 (f): Spindle speed has significant effect on order to analyze the input data. Analysis of vari-
roughness. ance (ANOVA) is a statistical method used to in-
• H1 (g): Interaction (tool diameter and sheet vestigate experimental data and make decisions
thickness) has significant effect on roughness. about process parameters under study. It is used
to classify significant process parameters and to
METHODOLOGY measure their effects on response like roughness.
It is also very helpful in determining the percent-
This survey was conducted as ‘organized age contribution of each parameter against an ex-
quantitative review’ about incremental sheet pressed level of certainty.
forming parameters. This sort of survey has been Experimental incremental sheet forming
defined by Pickering and Byrne [13]. This survey (ISF) parameters have been studied in order to
practice has been tried by various students and investigate their effects on roughness. Results
researchers and gets repeated and best outcomes. and discussion is performed for each parameter
This procedure is very beneficial to the incremen- and also examined interaction effect, after the re-
tal sheet forming process parameters because of sults of tables about each process parameter. Next
quantitative idea about input data and will be seen section describes the parameters comparison on
in tabular form, permits successful comparison of roughness. End discussion was conducted which
process parameters values between various pa- concluded the whole findings of this survey pa-
pers. In this survey paper, some of selected pro- per. Finally, future scope of work and overall con-
cess parameters have been considered, because clusions were presented.
these parameters are basic in every incremental
sheet forming process, other particular incremen- EXPERIMENTAL FORMING PARAMETERS
tal process like electric and hot incremental form-
ing also included is this survey and output param- This survey paper investigates fundamen-
eters that considered is roughness. tal forming process parameters for incremental
A large number of papers were searched for sheet forming, also included hot, electric and
incremental sheet forming. For this study, papers laser forming. Several methods are available for
were selected according to some specified crite- analyzing the data collected from experiment.

77
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 1. Tool type’s levels

Hemi spherical Spherical Flat Parabolic Water jet tool Ball tool Angular tool
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 2. Response (Roughness) Levels

Increase Decrease No effect
1 2 0

Table 3. Input Factors and their levels

Low Range [0] Medium Range [1] High Range [3]
Sr.no Factors Units Levels
(mm) (mm) (mm)
1 Tool size 1-10 11-15 16
2 Sheet thickness .1-.8 .9-1.5 1.6
3 step increment .1-.4 .5-.8 .9-1
4 Feed rate 100-1200 1250-2400 2450
5 Spindle speed 100-2000 2100-4000 4050
Interaction
6 1-1.5 1.6 -2 2.1- 2.5
(tool size and sheet thickness)

However, statistical methods should be used to RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

analyze the data so that results and conclusions
are objective. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is Forming tool characteristics
widely used to test the statistical significance of
the effects through fisher method (F-test). In this Initially, two types of forming tools have been
study qualitative data classified the item into dif- used in incremental sheet forming process. First
one is rigid hemispherical tool and the other is ro-
ferent categories like increase or decrease and
tating ball end tool, enabling it to roll freely over
good or bad. If response (roughness) obtained
forming parts [16]. With the growth in incremen-
from experiments is in the form of qualitative
tal sheet forming field, flat end, angular and other
data, then the problem is that how to analyze data.
forming tool profiles were developed [11].
In order to analyze data through analysis of vari-
Cawley et al. [11] and Kim et al. [17] and Petek
ance (ANOVA), first convert input data into dif-
et al. [18] showed that one kind of forming tool has
ferent classes hemispherical, spherical or flat as 0,
more advantageous over the other kind of forming
1 or 2 etc respectively.
tool in terms of surface quality and formed parts
For example in case of tool types we classify
accuracy. Two parameters forming tool shapes
tool shapes into different numbers as shown in
and tool size were considered in this survey paper.
Table 1.
Forming mechanism was significantly influenced
Similarly, roughness achieved from these tool by forming tool profiles and tool size. Tool shape
types were also classified into different classes as and tool size mainly influence the contact area be-
no effect, Increasing or decreasing roughness as tween forming sheet and tool interface that creates
0, 1 or 2 respectively in Table 2. friction [5] and forming forces [5].
For others forming process parameters De-
sign of experiment was developed at 3- levels in
Table 3 and analyze the results with the help of
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to see the signifi-
cance of these process parameters on roughness.
Forming parameters and their ranges were classi-
fied and low, medium and high indicated as 0, 1,
2 respectively in order to design experiment, as
shown in Table 3. Fig. 2. Forming tool profiles [12]

78
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Forming tools are made from different materials Presently no papers have been found that inves-
like tool steel, carbide and high speed steel (HSS). tigate specifically the influence of tool materials on
Lubrication between forming sheet and tool affects roughness. So, we have not considered the effect of
the friction condition during forming process [19]. tool materials on formability in this survey.

Table 4. Tools types paper summary

Tool Roughness
Papers: Author& Output measure
Tool types types Tool material
reference (Effects on roughness) levels
levels
High roughness as compared to flat
Prashant [20] Hemispherical 0 N/A 1
tool.
Q235
40Gr Hardness of tool tip material is
Pengtao [21] Hemispherical 0 smaller, roughness will be larger and 1
Hard alloy vice versa.
06cr19Ni10
Parabolic heads of Increasing in surface quality with
Cawley [11] 3 Tool steel 2
various shapes increased coefficient.
Cawley [11] Flat end tools 2 Tool steel Increased surface quality. 2
Better surface finish compared to
Khare [22] Spherical tools 1 N/A hemispherical tool due to rolling ac- 2
tion instead of rubbing.
Ball end tool with lubrication leave no
Hemi spherical and surface scratches, while hemi spheri-
Kim [17] 0 N/A 2
rolling ball tool cal tool without lubrication left most
surface scratches.
Flat end tool provide better profile
Flat end tool and High speed
Ziran [23] 2 accuracy than hemispherical end 2
hemi spherical tool steel(HSS)
tool.
Rigid tool(RTSPIF), Rigid tool gives higher process accu-
Petek [18] Water jet tool 4 N/A racy and short machining time than 1
(WJSPIF) water jet tool.
Oblique roller
ball(ORB) and Roller ball tool have better surface
Lu [24] 5 N/A 2
Rigid hemi quality than over hemi spherical tool.
spherical(RHS) tool
With Acetal tool, absence of burnish
Acetal tool tip vs and step down ridges, and high isot-
Ham [25] 7 N/A 2
Carbide tool tip ropy of surface roughness. Carbide
tool produces smoother surfaces.
Coated tool Titanium alloy Coated tools have less surface
Cavaler [19] 7 1
uncoated tool (TiAlN) roughness than uncoated tool.
Ball tool with lubrication has better
Ball end tool EN medium
Chinnaiyan [26] 5 surface finish than hemispherical 2
Hemispherical carbon steel
tool.
ASTM A81 tool Smoothest surface can be produced
Adams [12] Parabolic (10x2) 3 2
steel than any other tool profiles
Ball tool solid Better surface finish of ball tool than
Li [10] 5 N/A 2
hemispherical tool hemi spherical tool.
ASTM A81 tool
Adams [12] Flat tools 2 Increased surface quality. 2
steel
Rotating ball tool, Hemispherical tool gives higher
Durante [5] Solid Hemispheri- 5 N/A surface roughness as compared to 1
cal tool ball tool.
ASTM A81 tool
Adams [12] Angular tools 6 Reduction in surface quality. 1
steel
ASTM A81 tool
Adams [12] Parabolic tools 3 Low surface roughness. 2
steel
(HNS,MS,WPS) Harder the tool hardness, will gives
Yazar [27] N/A N/A N/A
smaller the roughness.

79
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 5. ANOVA for forming tool shapes

Model Sum of Squares dof Mean square F Sig.
Between groups .61 1 .61 6.73 .02
Within groups (error) 1.09 12 .09
Total 1.71 13
Significance level = α = .05

Forming tool shapes diameter surface roughness decreased. 3 papers

suggested that an optimized value of tool diam-
Few papers compared various shapes of form- eter decreased surface roughness. Only one paper
ing tools that determines their effect on surface was seen that presented that forming tool size has
roughness. The target of this survey is addition- insignificant effect on surface roughness. No pa-
ally to buildup comprehension of how incremen- per was seen that claimed that with decrease in
tal sheet forming tools shapes influence the form- tool size surface roughness decreased.
ing attribute like surface roughness. Main focus is Table demonstrates the summery of each pa-
given to the effects of various tool shapes which
per, with extra information about sheet material,
have not yet been illustrated.
tool material and experiment replications.
The summery of effects of these tools on sur-
Summery of papers is given in the Table 6.
face roughness is given in Table 4.
Shanmuganatan et al. tetsted various tool di-
Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA
ameter combined with step increment on AA 3003-
in Table 5.
O sheet and analyzed that with increasing the tool
Factor significance Criteria:
diameter surface roughness decreased [32].
• Factor will be significant if P value < α
⇒ .02 < .05 (Condition satisfied)
• Hence, Null hypothesis (Ho) should be rejected
• Contribution = (.61 / 1.71) ˟ 100 = 36 %
It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1) should
be accepted. Therefore, tool shapes has significant
effect in terms of surface quality. Li et al. [10] and
Kim et al. [17] compared roller ball tool and hemi-
spherical tools by using straight groove test (SGT)
in order to quantify their effects on surface rough-
ness. Other researcher Durante et al. [5] expressed
that such kind of test is not the real indicator of ac-
tual deformation of incremental forming process.
Durante suggested that hemispherical tool gives
higher surface roughness as compared to ball tool.
The others issue that were examined by com- Fig. 3. Forming tool diameter journal papers
paring the solid hemi spherical tool without ro-
tation, with rolling ball tool, it will be seen that
rolling ball tool is more advantageous than hemi-
spherical tools in terms of roughness. A careful
understanding about the various shapes of form-
ing tools on surface quality and will permits the
clients of sheet forming process to choose the best
tool for every specific forming requirement.

Forming tool size

There were 20 journal papers were found
in this survey paper that describe the effects of
forming tool size on surface roughness. Most of Fig. 4. Effect of various forming tool types and size
the papers claimed that with increase in tool tip on surface roughness [12]

80
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 6. Tool diameter papers summery

Papers: Author& Tool tip diameter Tool diameter Experiment Roughness
Tool material Blank material
reference (mm) level replications level
Effect: with increase in tool diameter, roughness will decrease
Jeswiet [28] 6.35, 9.53, 12.72 1 N/A AA 5052-H32 3 2
Bhattacharya [29] 4, 6, 8 0 N/A Al 5052 N/A 2
Cavaler [19] 8, 10 0 TiAlN coated AISI 304L steel 1 2
Kim [17] 5, 10, 15 1 N/A AA1050 N/A 2
Kurra [30] 6, 10, 14 1 Tool steel EDD steel 1 2
DC01 Mild
Radu [31] 3, 5 0 Spherical tool 2
steel

Shanmuganatan [32] 2.5, 5, 10 0 Tool steel AA 3003-O N/A 2

PC,
Bagudanch [6] 6, 10 0 N/A 1 2
PVC(TPIF)
DIN 1.0037
Rattanachan 10, 12 1 N/A N/A 2
steel
Durante [5] 2.5, 5, 7.5 0 N/A AA 7075-T0 1 2
Shanmuganatan [9] 2.5, 5, 10 0 N/A AA 3003-O 3 2
Stainless steel
Radu [33] 6, 10 0 N/A N/A 2
304
Li [34] 10, 16 2 N/A Al 2024-T3 N/A 2
Stainless
Jagtap [35] 8, 16 2 Al 1050 N/A 2
steel SS 304
Malwad [36] 6, 12 1 HSS AA 8011 N/A 2
Gulati [8] 8, 12 1 HSS Al 6063 3 2
Effect: Optimize tool diameter gives smaller surface roughness
Liu [37] 15, 20, 25 2 N/A AA 7075-O 1 2
EN medium
Chinnaiyan [26] 8, 10, 12 1 Al 5052 3 2
carbon steel
Deepak [7] 16, 18, 20 2 HSS Al 2014 2 2
Effect: No significant effect on surface roughness
PC, PVC
Bagudanch [6] 6, 10 0 N/A 1 0
(SPIF)

Table 7. ANOVA for tool diameter

Model Sum of squares Dof Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 2.61 2 1.30 1.24 .03
Within groups (error) 1.91 16 .11
Total 4.52 18
Significance level = α = .05

Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA significant effects in terms of surface quality. It
in Table 7. was observed that for specific step increment, in-
Factor significance Criteria: crease in tool diameter, and ends between neigh-
• Factor will be Significant if P value < α bors cover overlaps. Forming tool with small tip
⇒ .03 < .05 (Condition satisfied) diameter focuses the strain at the area of defor-
• Hence, Null Hypothesis (Ho) should be re- mation on blank sheet while tools with larger tip
jected. diameter tend to allocate strain rate over larger
• Contribution = (2.616 / 4.526) ˟ 100 = 57.7 % area of deformation. Thus larger diameter tools
It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1) have considerable effect in formation process
should be accepted. Therefore, tool size has and can enhance the surface quality and reduce

81
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

the forming time with increase in step incre-

ment without disturbing surface quality. It was
observed that formability increases with smaller
tool diameter. Strano et al. [38] suggested that
material type and material thickness must be tak-
ing into account when choosing forming tool.
Results about tool diameter and sheet thickness
interaction were shown in interaction table of
“tool size vs sheet thickness”.

Sheet material characteristics

Various materials have been utilized in in-
cremental sheet forming process that includes Fig. 5. Sheet thickness papers
metals [39] polymer blanks [40] and others
blank materials like sandwich panels [41] with
high variety of surface finish. This survey does The values of blank thickness are not essen-
not investigate the surface finish of particular tial in this survey paper because every material
material; despite enlist them in tables for para- have different mechanical and chemical proper-
metric analysis in order to show the compari- ties for example 1.5 mm sheet thickness of one
son between different tests with same mate- material performs inversely to 1.5 mm thickness
rial as an example aluminum alloy (AA 3003) of an alternate material [39]. General influence of
or poly vinyl chloride (PVC). On the base of increasing or decreasing the sheet thickness on
blank material type all others forming param- surface roughness has been examined.
eters are selected.
Sheet thickness is an essential process param- Sheet thickness
eter and efficiently affects the incremental sheet
forming process, particularly when the forming In this survey paper, few papers were seen
force is required to deform the blank sheet be- that showed the effect of sheet thickness on
cause with increase in sheet thickness, forming surface roughness. Total 5 journal papers var-
forced increased [42]. For shear forming, sheet ied sheet thickness to decide their impact on
thickness is also an important factor in sine law surface roughness. Only one papers showed
that with increase in sheet thickness, surface
equation in which final sheet thickness can be find
roughness increased. 2 papers showed that
with the help of initial sheet thickness and have
with decease in sheet thickness, surface rough-
seen accurate formed parts in single pas [43].
ness decreased. 2 papers suggested that an op-
Equation 1. given below as
timized sheet thickness improved surface fin-
tf = ti ˟ sin (90-φ) (1) ish. Summery of papers is given in the Table 8.
Where: t = final sheet thickness, ti = Initial sheet
f
Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA
thickness, φ = Wall angle. in Table 9.

Table 8. Sheet thickness papers summery

Papers: Author& Sheet thickness Experiment Roughness
Sheet material Sheet thickness (mm)
reference levels replications level
Effect: with decrease in sheet thickness, roughness decreased.
Gulati [8] Al 6063 .55, 1.09, 1.67 2 3 1
Shanmuganatan
AA 3003-O 1, 1.25 1 3 1
[9]
Effect: With increase in sheet thickness, roughness decreased.
Deepak [7] Al 2014 1.2, 2, 2.3 2 2 2
Effect: Optimize sheet thickness, decreased surface roughness
Liu [37] AA 7075-O 1.02, 1.60, 2.54 2 1 2
Chinnaiyan [26] Al 5052 .8, 1, 1.2 1 3 2

82
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 9. ANOVA for sheet thickness

Model Sum of squares dof Mean square F Sig.
Between Groups .05 1 .05 .20 .68
Within Groups (error) .75 3 .25
Total .80 4

Factor significance Criteria:

• Factor will be Significant if P value < α
⇒ .68 > .05 (Condition not satisfied).
• Hence, Null Hypothesis (Ho) should be ac-
cepted.
• Contribution = (.050 / .800) ˟ 100 = 6.25 %.
It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1)
should be rejected. Therefore, sheet thickness has
insignificant effect on surface roughness. From
this survey it was observed that surface quality
decreases as sheet thickness increases.
Deepak examined different sheet thickness
of AL 2014 with two replications of each ex-
periment in order to get better results on surface Fig. 6. Step increment papers
quality. They analyzed that with increase in sheet
thickness roughnss increased [7].
On the other side, Shanmuganatan et al. tested • Contribution = (4.935 / 13.181) ˟ 100 = 19.9
aluminim alloy (AA 3003-O) with different sheet % = 37.4 %
thickness and investigated that with decrease in It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1) should
sheet thickness surface roughness decreased [9]. It be accepted. Therefore, step increment has sig-
might be due to that more forming force is required nificant effect on roughness. Figure 7 shows the
for thick sheets as compared to thin sheets in order to effect of step increment on surface roughness. As,
metal flow thus rough surface seen for thick sheets. with increase in step increment surface roughness
decreased. It might be important in some cases, to
Step increment optimize surface roughness and forming process
speed in which surface quality shoud be improved
In this survey paper, 27 differerent papres per milimeter, it would require to be evaluated.
were seen that varied step increment in order An optimized value of step increment in neces-
to decide their effect on surface qulaity. Out of sary when tradeoff between surface quality and
these, 19 of the papers presents that surface qual- forming time is required.
ity of material improved by decreasing the step Hagan tested different step increment for alu-
down. 3 papers suggested that with increasing the minum alloy (AA 3003) with one replication of
step increment surface roughness decreased. 2 each experiment. They found that with decrease
papers showed that an optimization of step incre- in step increment surface roughness decreased
ment decreased surface roughness. 3 papers pre- [44]. Bhattacharya et al. [29] tested different step
sented that step down has insignificant effect on increment on aluminum (Al 5052). They exam-
surface roughness. Summery of papers about step ined that with increasing the step increment sur-
down is explained in Table 10. face roughness increased first up to certain value,
Summery of papers is given in the Table 10. after this surface roughness decreased with in-
Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA crease in step depth.
shown Table 11. Assumptions related to the effect of step in-
Factor significance Criteria: crement on surface roughness were proposed by
• Factor will be Significant if P value < α various papers in this survey. With decresing step
⇒ .045 < .05 (Condition satisfied) down has been appeared to increase surface fin-
• Hence, Null Hypothesis (H0) should be re- ish and have significant effect on forming time. It
jected. might be important in some cases, to optimize sur-

83
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 10. Step increment papers summery

Papers: Author& Step increment Experiment Roughness
Sheet material Step increment (mm)
reference levels replications levels
Effect: With decrease in step increment, roughness decreased
Hagan [44] Al 3003 .5, 1, 1.5 2 1 1
Bhattacharya [29] Al 5052 .2, .6, 1 2 N/A 1
Attanasio [45] Fe P04 steel .2, .5, 1 2 N/A 1
Desai [46] Al1200-H14 .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8 1 3 1
Radu [31] DC01 Mild steel .05, .5 1 N/A 1
Patel [47] IS 19000 (Al alloy) .1, .2, .3 0 1
Bagudanch [6] PC,PVC(SPIF) .2, .5 1 2 1
Kurra [30] EDD steel .7, 1.1, 1.5 2 1 1
Gulati [8] Al 6063 .5, 1, 1.5 2 3
Radu [33] Stainless steel .05, .5 1 N/A 1
Khazaali [48] SS 304 1, 1.5, 2 2 N/A 1
Shanmuganatan
AA 3003-O .2, .4, .6, .8 1 N/A 1
[32]
Uttarwar [49] Al 1100 .2, .5, 1 2 1 1
Mulay [50] AA 8011 .2, .5, .1 1 N/A 1
Durante [5] AA 7075-TO .2, .4, .6 1 N/A 1
Lu [51] Al 7075-O .1, .6, 1.1 2 N/A 1
Lasunon [52] AA 5052 .38, .76 1 N/A 1
Malwad [36] AA 8011 .2, .5 1 N/A 1
Jagtap [35] Al 1050 .5, 1 2 N/A 1
Effect: With increase in step increment, roughness decreased
Cavaler [19] AISI 304L steel .4, .6, .8 1 1 2
Rattanachan [53] DIN 1.0037 steel 1, 2 2 N/A 2
Bagudanch [6] PC, PVC(TPIF) .2, .5 1 2 2
Effect: No significant effect of step increment on roughness
Bermudez l [54] Al 1100-H0 .5, 1 2 3 0
Yazar [27] QD steel .2, .5, .8 1 3 0
Deepak [7] Al 2014 .3, .5, .75 1 2 0
Effect: Optimize step increment, will minimum surface roughness
Liu [37] AA 7075-O .2, .5, .8 1 1 2
Mugendiran [55] AA 5052 .25, .5, .75 1 1 2

Table 11. ANOVA for step increment

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 4.93 2 2.46 3.401 .045
Within Groups(error) 8.24 16 .63
Total 13.18 18

face quality and forming process speed in which claimed that surface roughness would be decrased
surface quality should be improved per millime- with decrease in feed rate. 4 papers found that
ter. For example, would require to be evaluated. with increase in feed rate, roughness decreased. 3
papers suggested that an optimized value of feed
Feed Rate rate minimized the surface roughness. 5 papers
In this survey paper, 18 journal papers have claimd that feed rate has no impact on surface
been found that showed the effect of feed rate roughness. Summery of papers about feed rate is
on surface quality. Out of these, 6 journal papers explained in Table 12.

84
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Fig. 7. Effect of step increment on surface roughness Fig. 8. Feed rate papers

Table 12. Feed rate papers summery

Feed rate Experiment Surface roughness
Papers: Author& reference Sheet material Feed rate (mm/min)
levels replications levels
Effect: with decrease in feed rate, Surface roughness will decrease
IS 19000
Patel [47] 1000, 1500, 2000 1 1 1
(Al alloy)
Mulay [50] AA 8011 500, 800, 1200 0 N/A 1
DIN 1.0037
Rattanachan [53] 3142, 3770 2 N/A 1
steel
Chinnaiyan [26] AA 5052 300, 600, 900 0 3 1
Gulati [8] Al 6063 1000, 2000, 2500 2 3 1
Effect: with increase in feed rate, surface roughness will decrease
720, 1440, 1800,
Silva [56] SAE 1008 steel 1 1 2
2160, 4800, 8400
Bermudez [54] Al 1100-H0 2000, 3500 2 3 2
Yazar [27] QD steel 900, 1200, 1500 1 3 2
Radu [33] Stainless 304 1500, 3000 2 N/A 2
Effect: Optimize feed rate for minimum surface roughness
Deepak [7] Al 2014 1500, 2000, 3000 2 2 2
Mugendiran [55] AA 5052 500, 650, 800 0 1 2
Kurra [30] EDD Steel 750, 1500, 2250 1 1 2
Effect: Feed rate has no significant effect on surface roughness
Liu [37] AA 7075-O 4000, 5000, 6000 2 1 0
Bagudanch [6] PC, PVC 1500, 3000 2 1 0
Uttarwar [49] Al 1100 500, 800, 1200 0 1 0
Shah [57] Al 1100 500, 800, 1200 0 1 0
Lasunon [52] AA 5052 317, 635, 1270 1 N/A 0

Table 13. ANOVA for feed rate

Model Sum of squares dof Mean square F Sig.
Between Groups .19 2 .09 .687 .52
Within Groups (error) 1.52 11 .13
Total 1.71 13

Summery of papers is given in the Table 12. Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA shown
in Table 13.

85
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Fig. 9. Effect of feed rate on surface roughness Fig. 10. Spindle rotational speed papers

Factor significance Criteria: Spindle rotational speed

• Factor will be Significant if P value < α
⇒ .52 > .05 (Condition not satisfied) In this survay, 15 journals papers presented
• Hence, Null Hypothesis (H0) should be ac- the impact of spindle speed on surface rough-
cepted. ness. Out of these, 5 papers claimed that sur-
• Contribution= (.190 / 1.714) ˟ 100 = 11 % face rughness decreased with increase in spindle
It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1) should speed. 3 papers suggested that with decrease in
be rejected. Therefore, feed rate has insignificant spindle speed surface roughness decreased. 4 pa-
effect on surface roughness. Figure 8 shows the pers represents that an optimized spindle speed
effect of feed rate on surface roughness. As, with would cause to decrease surface roughness. 3 pa-
increase in feed rate surface roughness decreased pers suggested that rotational speed has no effect
at some extent the surface roughness increased. on surface roughness. Summery of papers about
Chinnaiyan investigated aluminum alloy (AA spindle rotational speed is explained in Table 14.
5052) sheet metal under different feed rate 300, Summery of papers is given in the Table 14.
600 and 900 mm/rev with 3 replications of each Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA
experimnet. They suggested that with decrease in shown in Table 15.
feed rate surface roughnedd decreased. Moreover Factor significance Criteria:
smaller feed rate inceased forming time [26]. • Factor will be Significant if P value < α
Gulati tested alminum (Al 6063) blank mate- ⇒ .10 > .05 (Condition not satisfied)
rial at three different level of feed rate with three • Hence, Null Hypothesis (Ho) should be ac-
rpelictaion of each experiment using Design of cepted.
experiment (DOE). They found that with decrease • Contribution = (1.571 / 6.0) ˟ 100 = 26 %
in feed rate surface roughness decreased [8]. It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1)
Yazar performed experiments on quartz (QD) should be rejected. Therefore, spindle speed has
steel at different level of feed rate 900, 1200 and 1500 insignificant effect on surface roughness. Figure
mm/rev with three replications of each experiment 10 shows the effect of spindle speed on surface
using orthogonal array. They suggested that with in- roughness. As, with increase in spindle speed
crease in feed rate surface roughness decreased [27]. surface roughness decreased. Desai tested alumi-
It can be seen that impact of feed rate relies num (Al 1200-H14) sheet blank at constant feed
upon sheet material that formed in incremental and step increment and varying spindle rotation-
sheet forming. Feed rates combined with step al speed and investigated their effect on surface
increment effects the forming time. However, roughness [46].
for the trade off between surface roughness and Bermudez et al. [54] developed design of
forming time. Optimization would be required experiments in order to investigate the effect of
between these forming process parameters. Infor- spindle rotation speed on surface roughness. They
mation about the imapct of feed rates on various tested aluminum (Al 1100-H0) at 0 and 500 rev/
materials would be necessary for the improve- min with three replication of each of each experi-
ment of surface quality as feed rate deceased. ment. They found that spindle rotational sped in-

86
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 14. Spindle rotational speed papers summery

Spindle Surface
Papers: Author& Experiment
Sheet material Spindle speed (rpm) speed roughness
reference replications
levels levels
Effect: with decrease in Spindle speed, Surface roughness decreased
Hagan [44] Al 3003 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 1 1 1
Bermudez [54] Al 1100-H0 0, 1500 0 3 1
Rattanachan [58] DIN 1.0037 steel 100, 1000 0 N/A 1
Effect: with increase in spindle speed, Surface roughness decreased
Desai [46] Al1200-H14 500, 750, 1000, 1250 0 1 2
Stainless steel
Radu [33] 500, 1000 0 N/A 2
304
Mulay [50] AA 8011 600, 800, 1000 0 N/A 2
Radu [31] DC01 Mild steel 500, 1000 0 N/A 2
Patel [47] IS 19000(Al alloy) 500, 1000, 1500 0 1 2
Effect: Significant effect of spindle speed on surface roughness
Petek [59] DC05 steel 0, 4000 1 3 2
Uttarwar [49] Al 1100 600, 800, 1000 0 1 2
Shah [57] Al 1100 600, 800, 1000 0 1 2
Effect: Optimize spindle speed to minimize roughness
Gulati [8] Al 6063 0, 250, 500 0 3 0
Chinnaiyan [26] Al 5052 300, 450, 600 0 3 0
Deepak [7] Al 2014 0, 100, 200 0 2 0
Mugendiran [55] AA 5052 1500, 2000, 2500 1 1 0

Table 15. ANOVA for spindle speed

Model Sum of squares dof Mean square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.57 1 1.57 3.19 .10
Within Groups (error) 4.42 9 .49
Total 6.00 10

In view of these results from 15 papers, it ap-

pears to be evident that with increasing the rota-
tional speed over 0 rpm will probably bring the
improvement in surface quality. Two optimized
paper [60] [61] upper limit will be discovered
when contact between metal sheet and tool is too
high and surface fracture began. These papers
shows that there would be no example where sta-
tionary forming tool should be utilized. With the
help ball end tool, minimum friction was seen.
Rigid stationary forming tools are inconvenient
to both surface finish and formability, shown in
T. Hakutani et al. [61] and Xu et al. [62] and Du-
Fig. 11. Effect of spindle speed on surface roughness
rante et al. [5].

Direction of Spindle rotation

fluence the surface roughness n both perpendicu-
lar and parallel direction. They suggested that Just two papers in this survey attempted re-
with decrease in spindle speed surface roughness search utilizing conventional and vertical milling
decreased. direction. Obikawa et al. [61] combined this view

87
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

point into their tests on alumimium foils. Spindle Table 16. Spindle rotational speed and feed rate inter-
speed range of 0 to 25000 rpm was examined in action
both vertical and conventional milling directions, Papers:
Feed rate Spindle Sheet
indicated by -25000 rpm to +25000 rpm. At high Author&
(mm/min) speed (rpm) material
reference
rotational speeds, there was small change change
Effect: Feed rate is regular, when spindle speed in-
observed between these two rotational directions.
creases, Roughness will be lower and vice versa
Durante et al. [5] step by step formed the parts
50, 150, 250,
with rigid hemispherical tool rotationing in both Pengtao [21] Constant
350,…..,950
2A112
directions clockwise and anti clock wise, and Mugendiran 1500, 2000,
Constant AA 5052
matched the reults of those rolling ball tool and [55] 2500
stationary rigid tool. Spindle rotation direction Effect: spindle speed is regular, when feed rate de-
creases, Roughness will be lower and vice versa
have not significant impact on formability but
have significant effect on forming forces and on 100, 200,
Pengtao [21] Constant 2A112
300,…..,1000
surface quality. The rigid hemispherical tool cre-
Mugendiran
ated an poorer surface quality as compred to the [55]
500, 650, 800 Constant AA 5052
rolling ball tool. Solid hemispherical tool rotating Effect: Reducing feed rate and spindle speed will
at 600 rpm in rolling direction in order to produce decrease surface roughness
miminal forming force. Rattanachan
3142, 3770 100,200
DIN
The conclusion that was extract from the re- [53] 1.0037

sults of this portion and in the last section of spin- Optimize: Spindle speed and feed gives lower surface
roughness
dle speed is that for most of the materials forming
Bermudez Al 1100-
tools should be revolved at high speeds in order [54]
2000, 3500 0, 1500
H0
to maximize the formability of forming parts and Chinnaiyan 300, 450,
300, 600, 900 Al 5052
minimize surface roughness. All discussion con- [26] 600
siderd that rotational direction of spindle will not Effect: No significant effect of feed and speed on
effect the results of any importance. However surface roughness

climb will at present remain most widely recog- 500, 800, 600, 800,
Uttarwar [49] Al 1100
1200 1000
nized milling mode as forming tools rolling on
the forming sheet in order to minimize the rela-
tive friction. Furthermore, it could be claimed
sheet forming process. Two papers were seen that
there would be no condition where tradational
showed that the interaction between these two form-
milling would be useful.
ing process parameters, both papers utilized Poly-
FACTORS INTERACTION EFFECT ON mers in their experiments. Bermudez et al. [54] and
Chinnaiyan et al. [26] demonstrated that idecreased
SURFACE ROUGHNESS
roughness for specific interaction of spindle speed
The following portion in this survey demon- and feed rate, result the high interaction between
strated the important factors interactions and dis- these two parameters using Aluminium alloy.
cuss about their importance on response. Summery of papers is given in the Table 16.
Bagudanch et al. [6] found no effect of speed
Spindle rotational speed and feed rate and feed interaction on formability, however
interaction showed a critical results on surface quality. They
utilized comparative feed rates such as 1500 mm/
Spindle speed and feed rate play a significant min and 3000 mm/min and diverse values of spin-
role in friction between formed tool and sheet ac- dle speed free rotation mean 0 rpm and 2000
companying heat generated during incremental rpm. Free rotation of forming tool would have

Table 17. ANOVA for Spindle rotational speed and feed rate interaction
Model Sum of squares dof Mean square F Sig.
Between Groups .75 1 .75 2.40 .02
Within Groups (error) 1.25 4 .31
Total 2.00 5

88
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

roughness decreased at some extent after this sur-

face roughness increased. There is an opportunity
for understanding the impact of this interaction on
materials others than polymers, in order to over-
come frictional condition. Furthermore, build up
an upper and lower operating border of the rela-
tion of feed rate and spindle speed.

Tool diameter and sheet thickness interaction

In this section an interaction between form-
ing tool diameter and blank thickness discussed.
There is an indication to demonstrate that inter-
Fig. 12. Effect of spindle rotational speed and feed action of tool tip diameter and sheet thickness
rate interaction on surface roughness
plays an important role in surface roughness of
any type of material, regardless whether part will
form or not. A smaller tool tip diameter with a
caused low spindle speed of 50 rpm to 160 rpm.
thick sheet can damage the surface, unless the
Thus, it would be motivating to chek a central
point spindle speed to look at with results comes part will become useless [63]. Table 18 illustrates
from Le et al. [40]. extra data for the papers mention above in the
Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA table of tool size. In the table ratio min R/t * and
in Table 17. max R/t * has no unit because tool radius and
Factor significance Criteria: sheet thickness has same unit (mm). The differ-
• Factor will be Significant if P value < α ence between max R/t and min R/t is persented as
⇒ .045 < .05 (Condition satisfied) range in the Table 18.
• Hence, Null Hypothesis (H0) should be re- Summery of papers is given in the Table 18.
jected. Analyze the results with the help of ANOVA in
• Contribution= (.750 / .20) ˟ 100 = 37.5 % Table 19.
It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1) should Factor significance Criteria:
be accepted. Therefore, spindle speed and feed • Factor will be Significant if P value < α
rate interactions have significant effect on rough- ⇒ .08 > .05 (Condition not satisfied)
ness. Figure 12 shows that spindle speed and • Hence, Null Hypothesis (H0) should be re-
feed rate interaction effects on surface roughness. jected.
As, spindle speed and feed rate increase surface • Contribution = (.097 / .897) ˟ 100 = 11 %

Table 18. Paper summery

Papers: Author&
min R/t * max R/t * Range Sheet material Sheet thickness (mm)
reference
Effect: with increase in tool diameter, surface roughness will decrease
Cavaler et al. [19] 8 10 2 AISI 304L .5
Bagudanch et al.[6] 2 3.34 1.34 PC, PVC 1.5
Li [34] 5 8 3 Al 2024-T3 1
Shanmuganatan [32] 1 5 4 AA 3003-O 1, 1.25
Durante et al. [5] 2.5 7.5 5 AA 7075-T0 1
Shanmuganatan [9] 1 5 4 AA 3003-O 1, 1.25
Effect: with decrease in tool diameter, surface roughness will decrease
Gulati et al. [8] 2.39 10.90 8.51 Al 6063 .55, 1.09, 1.67
Effect: Optimize tool diameter will decrease surface roughness
Liu et al. [37] 2.95 12.25 9.30 AA 7075-O 1.02, 1.60, 2.54
Chinnaiyan et al. [26] 3.33 7.5 4.16 Al 5052 .8, 1, 1.2
Deepak et al. [7] 3.47 8.33 4.86 Al 2014 1.2, 2, 2.3
*Range=Max tool radius/sheet thickness-Min too radius/sheet thickness

89
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 19. ANOVA for Tool size and sheet thickness interaction
Model Sum of squares dof Mean square F Sig.
Between Groups .09 2 .04 .14 .08
Within Groups (error) .80 4 .20
Total .89 6

It means that Alternate hypothesis (H1) A medium impact of sheet thickness and step
should be accepted. Therefore, Tool size and increment was seen by Manco et al. [65] and Hus-
sheet thickness interaction has insignificant ef- sain et al. [63] observed that this interaction has
fect on surface roughness. Bagudanch et al. [64] insgnificant effect on fracture modes examined in
conducted analysis of variance (ANOVA) with their paper.
full factorial and discovered that tha interaction Step down and sheet material thickness inter-
between tool diameter and sheet thickness was action effect is consequently not vast. So, more
uneffected on formability however, have sig- research would required to find in view of if there
nificant effect on surface quality. Manco et al. is an optimal choice of sheet thickness and step
[65] carried analysis of variance (ANOVA) and increment.
discovered that interaction being reffered to did
not significantly affect the mimimum sheet metal PARAMETERS COMPARISON ON
thickness shown in tests. SURFACE ROUGHNESS
It means that In order to understand this in-
teraction would permit the forming tool to be Bar graph shown below in Figure 8 analyzes
selected based on specific material and sheet the total amount of papers that were found for ev-
metal thickness, in the situation where the last ery process parameter in this survey paper. Step
is product requirment. As Silva et al. [66] fo- increment had highest number of papers, followed
cus on that it is substantially more reasonable by tool tip diameter and feed rate. Few papers
to change sheet thickness over a large range of were found about spindle rotation speed, sheet
forming tool size. thickness and forming tool types. There are some
possible causes for limited research in this direc-
Sheet thickness and step down interaction tion. The factors could have smaller to insignifi-
cant effect that was seen in case of spindle rotation
Bagudanch et al. [64] and Ham et al. [14] direction, or it could be new research. As an ex-
both surveyed sheet thickness and step down ample, using different forming tools geometries. It
interaction with the help of analysis of variance could be due to deficiency of knowledge about the
(ANOVA) observed that this interaction has in- process parameters about in depth for example,
significant effect on response. forming tool types(using only rigid hemispherical

Fig. 13. Total number of papers effects on surface roughness

90
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

Table 20. Incremental sheet forming process param- CONTRADICTORY RESULTS

eters framework
Sr. No ISF Parameters In this survey it observed that forming pro-
1 Tool types cess parameters have inconsistent results. This
2 Tool diameter delivers confirmation about the hypothesis of this
3 Tool material
survey work, especially that forming process fac-
4 Sheet material type
tors are related, thus do not have stable effects
during ISF process in all conditions.
5 Sheet material thickness
Most important inconsistencies that observed
6 Material properties
while investigating the conclusions about the ef-
7 Step increment
fect of forming tool diameter, instead of having
8 Feed rate
large number of various journals articles that ex-
9 Spindle rotation speed
amined these forming parameters. The investiga-
10 Lubrication Effects
tions demonstrate that various papers used differ-
11 Spindle rotation direction ent forming tool sizes and furthermore focus on
12 Tool path strategy forming tool types and important interaction be-
13 Clamping mechanism tween tool tip diameter and blank material thick-
14 Experimental replications ness, also the interaction of tool diameter with
15 Forming machine specifications step increment. Due to these reasons, number of
papers was differing in their conclusions for form-
ing tool diameter and forming tool geometries is
forming tool) or due to rotational speed of spindle( not common. It provides direction for future re-
using non rotated forming tools only). searchers to consider the effect of interactions in
forming process so that we can see more reliable
ISF PROCESS PARAMETERS IN SURVEY conclusions about their collective impacts, and in
this way set optimal choices in incremental sheet
This quantitative evaluation in this survey forming process.
paper permitted an understanding about the ex-
perimental data written into these journal articles.
Some papers from this survey did not specify, for DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
example, many papers carried out that uses exper-
imental test replications that carried out material Based on extensive literature review, the aim
properties or value of spindle rotational speed. It of this paper is to foster deeper understanding re-
is important to specify the whole exprimental as- garding influence of incremental sheet forming
pects for forming process parameters like lubrica- tool geometries on surface roughness. Forming
tion, missing from 25% of journal papers in this tool profiles and parametric interaction of various
survey. Feed rate of 100 mm/min and 3000 mm/ factors have received little academic attention.
min could have significantly various effects on re- This study represents extensive understanding
sponses due to heat produced during incremental regarding the influence of forming tool profiles
sheet forming process. on surface finish ,assisting in selection of best
The number of missed forming process pa- forming tool for specific forming operation and
rameters like lubrication, implied that full com- forming requirements.
parison between these paprameters is not possi- Forming tool geometries and shapes are con-
ble. This requirment more attention of full broad- sidered as pivotal attritubets of incremental sheet
ness of forming process parameters that have an forming process. Results obtained after employ-
impact on incremental sheet forming process, or ing analysis of variance (ANOVA) represent the
on important results mention in the papers. significant effect of tool shapes on surface rough-
A framework for important experimental data ness as hihglighted by its contribution of 36%.
is suggested in Table 20. For any fundamental in- Parabolic shape forming tools seemed to emabrk
cremental sheet forming research also consider- an outstanding effects on minimizaing the surface
ing hot or electrically assisted incremental sheet roughness for sheet metal forming. The reason for
forming processes. All these parameters provide this finding is justified due to large angle side
an important information about incremental sheet supporting the blank sheet or smothering scallop
forming for researchers. from forming tool step down.

91
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

In order to obtain desired forming charateris- cremental sheet forming (ISF) feed rate can be
tics, it is recommended to form the part with flat selected above 1000 mm/min to 6000 mm/min.
end tool and then changing it to parabolic forming Spindle rotation speed commonly considered the
tool, leading to better surface finishing once sur- main consideration of producing heat from friction
face angle has been set up. Further reseach is es- between forming tool and sheet. If heating advan-
sentially required to analyze the effects which roll- tages are required, then optimum setting of spindle
ing ball end tools might impart on suface finish. speed is essential in order to stop forming surface
Studies have investigated various factors con- damage as a result of friction between sheet and
tributing to control the incremental sheet forming forming tool interface. It was found that forming
process in multiple experimentations form earlier time is independent of tool rotation speed. It was
stage of development [17]. An organized survey observed that at higher spindle speed, surface qual-
[13] was conducted to investigate the diversity ity of formed parts increased. However it was ob-
among forming parameters and examined their served up to specific level, after this surface rough-
effect on surface quality. ness decreases and remained almost constant.
In this paper, information and results from In incremnetal sheet forming (ISF) most of the
various related papers were quantitatively rep- researchers used step increment from .2 mm to 1
resented including findings of sheet thickness, mm. The conclusions from this survey expressed
forming tool types, tool diameter, spindle rotation that surface finish improved with decreasing in
speed, feed rate and interactions between impor- step increment. . Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
tant process parameters. The finding imply that results analyzed that step increment has also sig-
there are some important forming process param- nificant effect onsurface quality and has contribu-
eters that are necessary to control each incremen- tion up to 37%. If less forming process time is
tal sheet forming process including simple, hot or required in in sheet forming process then value
electric assisted forming process. Based on to this of step increment should be optimized. This illus-
we considered only these fundamentals forming trates that material requirments should be consid-
parameters and did not undertake parameters like ered in order to select this process parameter and
temperature and current in this paper. it also demonstrates the significnace of catering
In incremental sheet forming (ISF) process to utilize the interactions of step increment with
most of the researchers used sheet thickness from tool diameter and sheet thickness.
.5 mm to 2 mm. The results from these investiga- Few papers were found in this survey that
tions demonstrated that with increasing or decreas- discussed about process parameters interactions.
ing of sheet thickness, surface quality improved. There is a strong interaction between spindle
Optimization of sheet is important because with speed and feed rate due to friction between form-
very large sheet thicknesses, outside form the ing tool tip and blank sheet interface. Addition-
range of values examined in majority of papers ally, this interaction also affects frictional heating
would start high challenge to form the parts with that might be valueable or unfavourable to this
very high forming force and due to this surface process, depending upon others forming param-
roughness increase as shown with aluminum alloy eters like sheet material type. An important inter-
(AA 3003-O) by Shanmuganatan et al. [32] and action between forming tool diameter and sheet
with aluminum alloy (AA 1100) having thickness thickness which can significantly effect the sur-
4 mm by Fang et al. [67]. This survey analyzed face roughness if the ratio between them is very
that influence of sheet thickness is reliable despite large, investigated by Hussain et al. [63].
the effects of every sheet material may vary. In conclusion of this survey paper, it has been
In incremental sheet forming (ISF) process observed that incremental sheet forming process
most of the researchers used spindle speed in range parameters are not independent but are extreme-
of 100 rpm to 1000 rpm. Based on sheet material ly interdependent.The results from this survey
type, spindle speed and feed should be optimized, demonsterted that how important the selection of
also with the requirement of forming process forming tool profile and others forming param-
time trade off. As spindle speed and feed would eters that can bring optimal forming character-
increase, surface finish during forming process istics. A framework about incremental forming
would decrease. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) sheet parameters have been exhibited in order to
results showed that both spindle speed and feed confirm comparability between research in this
rate have insignificant effect on roughness. In in- direction in future.

92
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

REFERENCES ing systematic quantitative literature reviews for

PhD candidates and other early-career researchers.
1. Duflou, J., et al., Laser assisted incremental form- Higher Education Research & Development, 2014.
ing: formability and accuracy improvement. CIRP 33(3): p. 534-548.
Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2007. 56(1): p. 14. Ham, M. and J. Jeswiet, Single point incremen-
273-276. tal forming and the forming criteria for AA3003.
2. Palumbo, G. and M. Brandizzi, Experimental in- CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2006.
vestigations on the single point incremental form- 55(1): p. 241-244.
ing of a titanium alloy component combining static 15. Ham, M. and J. Jeswiet, Forming limit curves in sin-
heating with high tool rotation speed. Materials & gle point incremental forming. CIRP Annals-Manu-
Design, 2012. 40: p. 43-51. facturing Technology, 2007. 56(1): p. 277-280.
3. Adams, D. and J. Jeswiet, Single-point incremen- 16. Shim, M.-S. and J.-J. Park, The formability of
tal forming of 6061-T6 using electrically assisted aluminum sheet in incremental forming. Jour-
forming methods. Proceedings of the Institution nal of Materials Processing Technology, 2001.
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of En- 113(1): p. 654-658.
gineering Manufacture, 2014. 228(7): p. 757-764. 17. Kim, Y. and J. Park, Effect of process parameters
4. Fan, G., et al., Electric hot incremental forming of on formability in incremental forming of sheet
Ti-6Al-4V titanium sheet. The International Jour- metal. Journal of materials processing technology,
nal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2010. 2002. 130: p. 42-46.
49(9): p. 941-947. 18. Petek, A., et al., Comparison of alternative ap-
5. Durante, M., A. Formisano, and A. Langella, Ob- proaches of single point incremental forming pro-
servations on the influence of tool-sheet contact cesses. Journal of materials processing technology,
conditions on an incremental forming process. 2009. 209(4): p. 1810-1815.
Journal of materials engineering and performance, 19. Cavaler, L., et al., Surface roughness in the incre-
2011. 20(6): p. 941-946. mental forming of AISI 304L stainless steel sheets.
6. Bagudanch, I., M. Sabater, and M.L. Garcia- J. Mechan. Eng. Phys, 2010. 1(2): p. 87-98.
Romeu, Single Point versus Two Point Incremen- 20. Prashant, M., et al., Single Point Incremental Sheet
tal Forming of thermoplastic materials. Advances Forming By CNC Vertical Milling Machine. Imperi-
in Materials and Processing Technologies, 2017. al Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2016. 2(11).
3(1): p. 135-144.
21. Pengtao, S., et al., Research on the Influencing
7. Deepak, S.S., COMPUTER AIDED MANUFAC- Factors of” Scale Veins” of Single Point Incremen-
TURING FACTORS AFFECTING REDUCTION tal Forming Workpieces Surface. Open Mechanical
OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND THICKNESS Engineering Journal, 2015. 9: p. 1025-1032.
IN INCREMENTAL SHEET FORMING PRO-
CESS. COMPUTER, 2017. 4(07). 22. Khare, U. and M. Pandagale, A review of funda-
mentals and advancement in incremental sheet
8. Gulati, V., et al., Process parameters optimization metal forming. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
in single point incremental forming. Journal of The Civil Engineering, 2014: p. 42-46.
Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 2016.
97(2): p. 185-193. 23. Ziran, X., et al., The performance of flat end and hemi-
spherical end tools in single-point incremental form-
9. Shanmuganatan, S. and V. Senthil Kumar. An ex- ing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufac-
perimental investigation on profile forming of an turing Technology, 2010. 46(9): p. 1113-1118.
end cap using Al 3003 (O). in Advanced Materials
24. Lu, B., et al., Mechanism investigation of friction-
Research. 2011. Trans Tech Publ.
related effects in single point incremental forming
10. Li, Y., et al., Simulation and experimental observa- using a developed oblique roller-ball tool. Interna-
tions of effect of different contact interfaces on the tional Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
incremental sheet forming process. Materials and 2014. 85: p. 14-29.
Manufacturing Processes, 2014. 29(2): p. 121-128.
25. Ham, M., B. Powers, and J. Loiselle. Surface to-
11. Cawley, B., D. Adams, and J. Jeswiet, Examining pography from single point incremental forming
tool shapes in single point incremental forming. using an acetal tool. in Key Engineering Materials.
Proc NAMRI/SME, 2012. 26: p. 201-206. 2013. Trans Tech Publ.
12. Adams, D.W., Improvements on single point incre- 26. Chinnaiyan, P. and A. Jeevanantham, Multi-objec-
mental forming through electrically assisted form- tive optimization of single point incremental sheet
ing, contact area prediction and tool development. forming of AA5052 using Taguchi based grey re-
2014: Queen’s University (Canada). lational analysis coupled with principal component
13. Pickering, C. and J. Byrne, The benefits of publish- analysis. International journal of precision engineer-

93
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

ing and manufacturing, 2014. 15(11): p. 2309-2316. 41. Jackson, K., J. Allwood, and M. Landert, Incre-
27. Yazar, K., P. Date, and K. Narasimhan, Experimen- mental forming of sandwich panels. Journal of
tal studies on single point incremental forming of Materials Processing Technology, 2008. 204(1): p.
metallic sheets. 290-303.
28. Jeswiet, J., et al., Single point and asymmetric in- 42. Arfa, H., R. Bahloul, and H. BelHadjSalah, Finite
cremental forming. Advances in Manufacturing, element modelling and experimental investigation
2015. 3(4): p. 253-262. of single point incremental forming process of alu-
minum sheets: influence of process parameters on
29. Bhattacharya, A., et al., Formability and surface
punch force monitoring and on mechanical and
finish studies in single point incremental forming.
geometrical quality of parts. International journal
Journal of manufacturing science and engineering,
of material forming, 2013. 6(4): p. 483-510.
2011. 133(6): p. 061020.
43. Jeswiet, J., E. Hagan, and A. Szekeres, Forming
30. Kurra, S. and S. Regalla, Multi-objective optimi-
parameters for incremental forming of aluminium
sation of single point incremental sheet forming
alloy sheet metal. Proceedings of the Institution of
using Taguchi-based grey relational analysis. In-
Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineer-
ternational Journal of Materials Engineering Inno-
ing Manufacture, 2002. 216(10): p. 1367-1371.
vation, 2015. 6(1): p. 74-90.
44. Hagan, E. and J. Jeswiet, Analysis of surface roughness
31. Radu, C., Effects of Process Parameters on the for parts formed by computer numerical controlled in-
Quality of Parts Processed by Single Point In- cremental forming. Proceedings of the Institution of
cremental Forming. Int. J. Mod. Manuf. Technol, Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
2011. 3(2): p. 91-96. Manufacture, 2004. 218(10): p. 1307-1312.
32. Shanmuganatan, S. and V.S. Kumar, Metallurgical 45. Attanasio, A., E. Ceretti, and C. Giardini, Optimi-
analysis and finite element modelling for thinning zation of tool path in two points incremental form-
characteristics of profile forming on circular cup. ing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
Materials & Design, 2013. 44: p. 208-215. 2006. 177(1): p. 409-412.
33. Radu, C., et al., The effect of residual stresses on the 46. Desai, B.V., K.P. Desai, and H.K. Raval, Die-Less
accuracy of parts processed by SPIF. Materials and rapid prototyping process: Parametric investigations.
Manufacturing Processes, 2013. 28(5): p. 572-576. Procedia Materials Science, 2014. 6: p. 666-673.
34. Li, X., et al. Single-point incremental forming of 47. Patel, J.R., et al., Analysis of Variance for Surface
2024-T3 aluminum alloy sheets. in AIP Confer- Roughness Produced During Single Point Incre-
ence Proceedings. 2013. AIP. mental Forming Process. Analysis, 2015. 2(3).
35. Jagtap, R., et al., An experimental study on the 48. Khazaali, H., Determining frustum depth of 304
influence of tool path, tool diameter and pitch in stainless steel plates with various diameters and
single point incremental forming (SPIF). Advances thicknesses by incremental forming. Journal of
in Materials and Processing Technologies, 2015. Mechanical Science and Technology, 2014. 28(8):
1(3-4): p. 465-473. p. 3273-3278.
36. Malwad, D. and V. Nandedkar, Deformation mech- 49. Uttarwar, P., S. Raini, and D. Malwad, Optimiza-
anism analysis of single point incremental sheet tion of process parameter on Surface Roughness
metal forming. Procedia Materials Science, 2014. (Ra) and Wall Thickness on SPIF using Taguchi
6: p. 1505-1510. method. International Research Journal of Engi-
37. Liu, Z., et al., Modeling and optimization of sur- neering and Technology, 2015.
face roughness in incremental sheet forming using 50. Mulay, A.S. and R. Navthar, Experimental and nu-
a multi-objective function. Materials and Manufac- merical studies on single point incremental form-
turing Processes, 2014. 29(7): p. 808-818. ing of commercial aluminum alloy.
38. Strano, M., Technological representation of form- 51. Lu, H., et al., Study on step depth for part accu-
ing limits for negative incremental forming of thin racy improvement in incremental sheet forming
aluminum sheets. Journal of manufacturing pro- process. Advanced Materials Research, 2014(939).
cesses, 2005. 7(2): p. 122-129. 52. Lasunon, O.U. Surface roughness in incremental
39. Jeswiet, J., et al., Asymmetric single point incre- sheet metal forming of AA5052. in Advanced Ma-
mental forming of sheet metal. CIRP Annals-Man- terials Research. 2013. Trans Tech Publ.
ufacturing Technology, 2005. 54(2): p. 88-114. 53. Rattanachan, K. and C. Chungchoo. The Effected
40. Le, V., A. Ghiotti, and G. Lucchetta, Preliminary of Single Point Incremental Forming Process Pa-
studies on single point incremental forming for rameters on the Formed Part Surface Roughness.
thermoplastic materials. International Journal of in Advanced Materials Research. 2014. Trans
Material Forming, 2008. 1: p. 1179-1182. Tech Publ.

94
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 12 (3), 2018

54. Bermudez Paramo, G.J., F.A. Bustamante-Correa, 61. Obikawa, T., S. Satou, and T. Hakutani, Dieless
and A.J. Benitez-Lozano, STatistical analysis of incremental micro-forming of miniature shell ob-
the main incremental forming process parameters jects of aluminum foils. International Journal of
that contribute to change the roughness in an ex- Machine Tools and Manufacture, 2009. 49(12): p.
perimental geometry. DYNA-Ingeniería e Indu- 906-915.
stria, 2016. 91(6). 62. Xu, D., et al., Mechanism investigation for the in-
55. Mugendiran, V., A. Gnanavelbabu, and R. Rama- fluence of tool rotation and laser surface texturing
doss, Parameter optimization for surface rough- (LST) on formability in single point incremental
ness and wall thickness on AA5052 Aluminium forming. International Journal of Machine Tools
alloy by incremental forming using response sur- and Manufacture, 2013. 73: p. 37-46.
face methodology. Procedia Engineering, 2014. 63. Hussain, G., L. Gao, and N. Hayat, Forming
97: p. 1991-2000. parameters and forming defects in incremental
56. Silva, P.J., L.M. Leodido, and C.R.M. Silva. Anal- forming of an aluminum sheet: correlation, em-
ysis of incremental sheet forming parameters and pirical modeling, and optimization: part A. Mate-
tools aimed at rapid prototyping. in Key Engineer- rials and Manufacturing Processes, 2011. 26(12):
ing Materials. 2013. Trans Tech Publ. p. 1546-1553.
57. Shah, H. and S. Chaudhary, Optimization of pro- 64. Bagudanch, I., et al., Forming force and tempera-
cess parameters for incremental sheet forming ture effects on single point incremental forming of
process. International Journal for Technological polyvinylchloride. Journal of materials processing
Research in Engineering. 3(7): p. 2347-4718. technology, 2015. 219: p. 221-229.
58. Rattanachan, K. and C. Chungchoo, Formability in 65. Manco, G. and G. Ambrogio, Influence of thick-
single point incremental forming of dome geom- ness on formability in 6082-T6. International Jour-
etry. AIJSTPME, 2009. 2(4): p. 57-63. nal of Material Forming, 2010. 3: p. 983-986.
59. Petek, A., K. Kuzman, and J. Kopac, Deformations 66. Silva, M.B., et al., Failure mechanisms in single-
and forces analysis of single point incremental point incremental forming of metals. The Interna-
sheet metal forming. Archives of Materials science tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-
and Engineering, 2009. 35(2): p. 35-42. nology, 2011. 56(9-12): p. 893-903.
60. Davarpanah, M.A., et al., Effects of incremental 67. Fang, Y., et al., Analytical and experimental in-
depth and tool rotation on failure modes and mi- vestigations on deformation mechanism and frac-
crostructural properties in Single Point Incremen- ture behavior in single point incremental forming.
tal Forming of polymers. Journal of materials pro- Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2014.
cessing technology, 2015. 222: p. 287-300. 214(8): p. 1503-1515.

95

View publication stats