1060 Al Electric Hot Incremental Sheet Forming Process: Analysis of Dimensional Accuracy and Temperature
- 122 Downloads
Abstract
The sheet with 1060 Al often is used to fabricate aluminum parts at room temperature in the incremental sheet forming process due to the fact that the metal has a high ductility in the normal temperature. However, the material can cause a large quantity of springback for parts formed to influence dimensional accuracy. In this paper, the use of the electric hot incremental forming process (EHIF) can effectively improve the dimensional accuracy of parts compared to single-stage forming and double-stage forming at room temperature. The effect of main process parameters, such as tool diameter, feed rate, step size, and current, on temperature is studied in detail using the EHIF. Some target values, namely, the maximum temperature, the average temperature, and the maximum temperature difference, are measured with a cone using 1060 Al. Moreover, the response surface methodology and Box–Behnken design have been employed to analyze results in detail and to establish respectively corresponding models to predict target values. Finally, the evaluating model of temperature uniformity is proposed and verified according to the previous models.
Keywords
Electric hot forming Single point incremental forming Dimensional accuracy Temperature analysis Response surface methodologyNotes
Acknowledgements
This study has received funding from National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51175257.
References
- 1.Matteo B, Vigilio F, and Bernardo M, in Proceedings of IMechE Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 231 (2017).Google Scholar
- 2.Jeswiet J, Micari F, and Hirt G, CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54 (2005).Google Scholar
- 3.Kurra S, Sree D, and Bagade, Mater Manuf Process 30 (2015).Google Scholar
- 4.Khalatbari H, Iqbal A, and Xiaofan S, Mater Manuf Process 30 (2015).Google Scholar
- 5.Salah B M, Echrif, and Meftah H, Mater Manuf Process 29 (2014).Google Scholar
- 6.Al-Ghamdi K A, and Hussain G, Mater Manuf Process 31 (2016).Google Scholar
- 7.Amini N S, and Ghaei A, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87 (2016).Google Scholar
- 8.Duflou J R, Callebautl B, and Verbert J, CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 56 (2007).Google Scholar
- 9.Guoqiang F, Lin G, and Hussain G, Int J Mach Tool Manuf 48 (2008).Google Scholar
- 10.Guoqiang F, Fengtao S, and Xiangguo M, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 49 (2010).Google Scholar
- 11.Guoqiang F, and Lin G, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72 (2014).Google Scholar
- 12.Guoqiang F, and Lin G, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72 (2014).Google Scholar
- 13.Xiaofan S, Lin G, and Hosein K, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68 (2013).Google Scholar
- 14.Ambrogio G, Filice L, and Gagliardi F, Mater Des 34 (2012).Google Scholar
- 15.Al-Obaidi A, Kräusel V, and Landgrebe D, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 82 (2016).Google Scholar
- 16.Honarpisheh M, Abdolhoseini M J, and Amini S, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83 (2016).Google Scholar
- 17.Verbert J, Belkassem B, and Henrard C, Int J Mater Form 11 (2008).Google Scholar
- 18.Zhaobing L, Yanle L, and Paul A M, Mater Manuf Process 28 (2013).Google Scholar
- 19.Bagudanch I, Vives-Mestres M, and Sabater M, Mater Manuf Process 32 (2017).Google Scholar
- 20.Durante M,Formisano A,and Langella A, J Mater Process Tech, 209 (2009).Google Scholar
- 21.Hamilton K, and Jeswiet J, CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59 (2010).Google Scholar