Comparison of Texture and Surface Finish Evolution During Single Point Incremental Forming and Formability Testing of AA 7075

  • Maya Nath
  • Jaekwang Shin
  • Ankush Bansal
  • Mihaela Banu
  • Alan Taub
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

Single Point Incremental Forming (SPIF) is an alternative method to conventional sheet forming processes, offering cost savings for small volume production as large presses and dies are not needed. In SPIF, a rigid tool moves along a pre-defined tool path, locally deforming the sheet until the final geometry is formed. For this study, AA 7075-O sheets were formed into variable angle funnels and 45° wall angle cones by SPIF. Deep drawn cups and a bulge test part were formed from the same sheet material as a comparison to SPIF. Specimens from the formed parts were sectioned and characterized for texture and surface finish at equivalent strains, but following different strain paths associated with the respective forming processes. Finite element models were used to compare the strain paths of SPIF and deep drawing.

Keywords

Single point incremental forming Deep drawing Bulge test AA 7075-O Microstructure Texture Surface finish Formability testing Finite element modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by DOD-ONR N00014-14-2-0002 - LIFT 0007A-4 through the American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute - LIFT. The authors are grateful to Erika Salem for her help in tool path generation and Timothy Odykirk for his help with imaging the bulge test samples.

References

  1. 1.
    Allwood JM, Utsunomiya H (2006) A survey of flexible forming processes in Japan. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manu. 46(15):1939–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeswiet J (2005) Asymmetric incremental sheet forming. Adv. Mat. Res. 6–6: 33–35.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cao, J et al. (2008) Incremental sheet metal forming: advances and challenges. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Technology of Plasticity, ICTP 2008, Gyeongju, Korea, 7–11 September 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Micari F, Ambrogio G, Filice L (2007) Shape and dimensional accuracy in Single Point Incremental Forming: State of the art and future trends. J. Mater. Process. Tech. 191(1–3):390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behera AK, Vanhove H, Lauwers B, Duflou JR (2011) Accuracy Improvement in Single Point Incremental Forming through Systematic Study of Feature Interactions. Key Eng. Mat. 473:881–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hussain G, Gao L, Hayat N (2011) Forming Parameters and Forming Defects in Incremental Forming of an Aluminum Sheet: Correlation, Empirical Modeling, and Optimization: Part A.” Mater. Manuf. Process. 26(12):1546–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamilton K, Jeswiet J (2010) Single point incremental forming at high feed rates and rotational speeds: Surface and structural consequences. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 59(1):311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Babu SC, Senthil Kumar VS (2012) Experimental studies on incremental forming of stainless steel AISI 304 sheets. P. I. Mech. Eng. B-J Eng. 226(7):1224–1229.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Radu C, Herghelegiu E, Cristea I, Schnakovszky C (2013) Analysis of the Surface Quality of Parts Processed by Single Point Incremental Forming. J. Eng. Stud. Res. 19(3):76–79.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim YH, Park JJ (2002) Effect of process parameters on formability in incremental forming of sheet metal. J. Mater. Process. Tech. 130–131:42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.zevedo NG, Farias JS, Bastos RP, Teixeira P, Davim JP, Alves de Sousa RJ (2015) Lubrication aspects during Single Point Incremental Forming for steel and aluminum materials. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 16(3):589–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniel D, Savoie J, Jonas JJ (1993) Textures induced by tension and deep drawing in low carbon and extra low carbon steel sheets. Acta Metall. Mater. 41(6):1905–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Savoie J, Zhou Y, Jonas JJ, Macewen SR (1996) Textures induced by tension and deep drawing in aluminum sheets. Acta Mater. 44(2):587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cai Y, Wang X, Yuan S (2017) Surface Roughening Behavior of 6063 Aluminum Alloy during Bulging by Spun Tubes. Materials 10(3):299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salem E, Shin J, Nath M, Banu M, Taub A (2016) Investigation of Thickness Variation in Single Point Incremental Forming. Procedia Manufacturing 5:828–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ASTM International (2013) ASTM E2627-13 Standard Practice for Determining Average Grain Size Using Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) in Fully Recrystallized Polycrystalline Materials. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1520/E2627.
  17. 17.
    Dassault Systems (2011) ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual (v.6.11), Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dassault Systems (2011) ABAQUS Theory Manual (v.6.11), Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suwas S, Ray RK (2014) Representation of Texture. In: Crystallographic Texture of Materials, Engineering Materials and Processes. Springer-Verlag London, p 11–38.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hu H (1974) Texture of Metals. Texture. 1:233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maya Nath
    • 1
  • Jaekwang Shin
    • 2
  • Ankush Bansal
    • 2
  • Mihaela Banu
    • 2
  • Alan Taub
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations