Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 September 2011
Received in revised form 1 February 2012
Accepted 29 February 2012
Available online 12 March 2012
Keywords:
SPIF
Fracture
Material instability
a b s t r a c t
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet metal forming technique which has gained considerable
interest in the research community due to its enhanced formability, greater process exibility and reduced
forming forces. However, a signicant impediment in the industrial adoption of this process is the accurate
prediction of fracture during the forming process. This work uses a recently developed fracture model
combined with nite element analyses to predict the occurrence of fracture in SPIF of two shapes, a cone
and a funnel. Experiments are performed to validate predictions from FEA in terms of forming forces,
thinning and fracture depths. In addition to showing excellent predictions, the primary deformation
mechanism in SPIF is compared to that in conventional forming process with a larger geometry-specic
punch, using the deformation history obtained from FEA. It is found that both through-the-thickness shear
and local bending of the sheet around the tool play a role in fracture in the SPIF process. Additionally, it is
shown that in-spite of higher shear in SPIF, which should have a retarding effect on damage accumulation,
high local bending of the sheet around the SPIF tool causes greater damage accumulation in SPIF than
in conventional forming. Analysis of material instability shows that the higher rate of damage causes
earlier growth of material instability in SPIF. A new theory, named the noodle theory, is proposed to
show that the local nature of deformation is primarily responsible for increased formability observed in
SPIF, in-spite of greater damage accumulation as compared to conventional forming.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In single point incremental forming (SPIF) a peripherally
clamped sheet is imparted a desired shape by moving a single hemispherical ended tool along a desired prole so as to locally deform
the sheet along this path (Fig. 1). The sum total of these local deformations gives the sheet its nal shape. Signicant advantages of this
process over conventional forming include greater formability, low
forming forces and generic tooling conguration. One of the major
research problems of considerable interest to the sheet metal forming community is the accurate prediction of fracture in SPIF. This
is important because an underestimation of the fracture depth will
result in a loss of the advantage of enhanced formability of the process and an overestimation will cause component failure during
the forming process itself. Furthermore, a better physical understanding of the mechanisms of deformation and fracture in SPIF
is of great importance since this can aid the choice of appropriate
process parameters for the process and can lead to modications
of the process to further enhance the achievable formability.
Early work in SPIF (Jeswiet et al., 2005) indicated that the maximum formable wall angle could be a good indicator for material
1574
Fig. 1. Schematic of SPIF (dotted lines show motion of tool in the prole view).
Emmens and van den Boogaard (2009) showed that FLCs have certain drawbacks when it comes to predicting failure in SPIF. It is
known that FLCs are not valid when there is bending and throughthe-thickness shear, both of which are signicant in SPIF. As a result
modications of conventional FLCs by incorporating the effects of
changing strain paths (Yao and Cao, 2002) and the effects of large
normal contact pressures (Smith et al., 2003) would still not be
able to predict failure in SPIF accurately. Therefore, the prediction
of formability in SPIF with conventional FLCs might not be feasible.
Numerical investigations using FEA have also been conducted to
investigate the deformation force and mechanisms in SPIF. Henrard
et al. (2007) modeled the contact between the tool and the sheet
using a moving spherical tool method, in which a dynamic explicit
time integration scheme was used instead of the usual penalty
based contact algorithm. The main improvement was that a better force prediction was obtained using their methodology even
though computational time was reduced by using a larger element size. Cerro et al. (2006) simulated SPIF of a pyramid with a
75 wall angle with shell elements and obtained a 5% difference
between the maximum values of the measured and calculated tool
z forces. However, no attempt was made to predict fracture. van
Bael et al. (2007) extended a Marciniak-Kuczyisnki analysis (MK analysis) to predict localized necking and fracture in SPIF. They
showed that while the forming limit predictions were higher than
that for monotonic loading, their models still underestimated the
forming limits obtained experimentally in SPIF. This was attributed
to the fact that the input for the M-K model was obtained at a
pre-determined location through the thickness of the sheet which
meant that interaction between different layers of the sheet was
not considered. Huang et al. (2008) used Oyanes fracture criterion,
an empirical fracture criterion, to predict failure during forming of
a conical cup using SPIF. The model was found to capture forming
limits in SPIF reasonably well, however, the predictions of forming
forces were not satisfactory. Silva et al. (2009) extended a membrane analysis of SPIF to incorporate a damage model in which
damage accumulation depended on hydrostatic stress and showed
that such an approach could be used to predict fracture strains in
SPIF. Malhotra et al. (2010a) investigated the use of various material
models and element types to simulate SPIF using FEA and showed
that a fracture model considering triaxility and shear as presented
in Xue (2007a,b) can predict forming forces and fracture occurrence much better than other common material models. The results
were promising and have led to the further investigations on the
mechanics of fracture in SPIF, which will be presented in this paper.
While predicting forming force and failure limits in SPIF is
important, a more interesting challenge is to understand why SPIF
results in a much higher formability compared to the conventional
forming process. Emmens et al. (2009) proposed that while bending, shear, cyclic straining and hydrostatic stress are the dominant
deformation mechanisms in SPIF, pinpointing which factors are
1575
plastic strain (p ) and a reference fracture strain (f ). In particular, we chose the stress-based fracture envelope for its simplicity.
The damage coupled yield function is
= eq w(D) M 0
(1)
M = y0 1 +
p
0
n
(2)
D=m
p
f
m1
p
f
(3)
where m is a material constant. In the nite element model an element completely loses its load carrying capacity and is removed
when the value of the damage variable D reaches 1.0. When all the
elements through the thickness of the sheet are removed then a
crack is said to have occurred at that location. The reference fracture strain (f ) is rst expressed as a stress envelope Mf , which
takes the form of a modied Tresca type of pyramid (Xue, 2009) as
follows,
3
Mf = f 0 1 + kp p
(4)
2 cos L
where f0 is a reference fracture stress, kp is a material constant
related to pressure sensitivity, p = ( kk /3) is the hydrostatic pressure and L is the Lode angle, via which the deviatoric component
of the stress state is incorporated into the reference fracture strain.
An example of this reference fracture strain in the space of the principal strains (1 , 2 and 3 ) and the hydrostatic stress p is shown in
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Illustrative example of the reference fracture strain envelope used in this
work.
1576
(1/n)
f 0
3
f (p, L ) = 0
1 + kp p
1
(5)
y0
2 cos L
Therefore, damage accumulation in this material model
depends on the plastic strain (p ) as well as on the current state of
hydrostatic pressure and deviatoric stress state, via the reference
fracture strain (f ). Xue (2010) showed that this type of I1-J2-J3
constitutive model can predict both the onset of ductile fracture
and material instability at the same time. Note that in this material
model there are four material constants which cannot be obtained
from tensile tests and therefore, a calibration procedure with different mean stress and deviatoric stress states should be employed.
These parameters are f0 , kp which quantify the reference fracture
strain (Equation (4)), and , m which are related to how the damage
and material softening evolves (Equations (1) and (3) respectively).
The material constant f0 is the matrix stress at fracture under zero
mean stress condition, i.e., tensile condition. The parameter kp is
responsible for the contribution of hydrostatic pressure towards
the evolution of f . The material constant m signies the rate at
which damage accumulates in an element and therefore how fast
the element is removed. The inclusion of a nonlinear damage evolution law takes into consideration the common observation that
damage accumulation rate increases as the plastic strain increases.
The value of dictates how the material loses its capacity to carry
load as damage accumulates. Note that since m inuences the evolution of the damage (Equation (3)) and inuences how this
damage affects the weakening of the material (Equation (1)), both
these material constants are together responsible for the softening
behavior of the material as damage develops.
In addition to the prediction of damage accumulation and
fracture, the occurrence of diffused and localized necking during
deformation is predicted analytically using this material model. Diffused necking is predicted using a three dimensional generalization
of Consideres maximum force criterion to a maximum power criterion, as derived in Xue (2010). The closed form expression used
to predict the onset of diffused necking is shown in Equation (6),
h
wD D
+
cos L +
M
w
6
(6)
(7)
2G w D
D
0
w
h + 3G0
2wG0 r r
(8)
C0 = 2G0 II + K0
2
G0 I I
3
(9)
Table 1
FEM model details.
Simulation case
Tool speed
(mm/s)
Target time
Simulation
increment for
time (CPU h)
mass scaling (s)
1.5e 06
1.2e 06
1.5e 06
SPIF: cone
3000
SPIF: funnel
1500
Conventional forming of cone 3000
78
115
13
Table 2
Material properties calibrated from tensile tests.
(kg/m3 )
E (GPa)
y0 (MPa)
2680
68.6
0.3
117
0.22
0.0045
where K0 is the bulk modulus of the material, I and II are the secondorder and fourth order identity tensors respectively. Equation (10)
shows the condition in which the material is stable in a HadamardHill sense, where g is a vector denoting the direction of particle
velocity. The material has lost stability at a given state when, for
some direction h and velocity g, the left hand side of Equation (10)
is lesser than zero.
g:A:g0
(10)
kp (MPa1 )
490
0.0001
1.80
2.5
1577
Fig. 4. (a) Schematic of the FEA model used to simulate SPIF. (b) Top view of the mesh used to discretize the blank.
initial slope of the force curve and the fracture depth are found to be
matching well but excessive weakening is observed then the value
of needs to be increased. In this work three trial simulation runs
were performed to calibrate these material parameters (Table 3).
To show the quality of the damage model calibration the forming
forces in the z direction obtained from experiments and simulation
for the 70 cone are compared in Fig. 5a.
3.3. Verication of the material calibration results
The calibrated FEA predicted that the cone fractured at a tool
tip depth of 16.1 mm in experiments as compared to a tool tip
depth of 14.8 mm predicted by FEA. Furthermore, the maximum
thinning just before fracture was 64% from experiment and 63%
from simulation. The same model was then used to predict forming force and fracture depth for the funnel case (Fig. 2b). In this case,
the experimentally measured fracture depth from experiments was
15.2 mm and that predicted by FEA was 14.5 mm. The tool z forces
from experiments and simulation for the funnel are compared in
Fig. 5b. The thinning before fracture was measured to be 65.8% from
experiments and 63.64% from simulation.
The forces on the tool relate to the state of stress in the material, maximum thinning relates to the strain experienced by the
material and the fracture height relates to how well the damage
evolution function (Equation (3)) incorporates the physical effects
that govern fracture in SPIF. It can be seen that the tool z force prediction, the maximum thinning and the fracture depth prediction
from FEA all agree quite well with those from experiments.
Fig. 5. Comparison of tool z forces between FEA and experiments for (a) 70 cone (b) funnel.
1578
Fig. 6. (a) Schematic of the FEA model (b) occurrence of crack predicted by FEA, for the punch forming case.
It can be seen that in both the cone and the funnel cases, the damage variable evolves faster for element 8, i.e., on the outer side of the
sheet, than for element 1 which is on the inner side of the sheet. As a
result, in FEA the element on the outer side of the sheet is removed
rst. This phenomenon was also conrmed by a visual examination of the FEA results. Physically this implies that in SPIF the crack
initiates on the outer side of the sheet and propagates inwards.
Note that in Equation (3) the damage variable D is directly proportional to plastic strain p and inversely proportional to the reference
fracture strain f . Therefore, to investigate the reasons behind the
trends for damage evolution shown in Fig. 8, the evolution of p and
f at sections A, B, C, D shall be examined next.
4.2. Evolution of plastic strain (p )
Fig. 9 shows the evolution of plastic strain (p ) for elements 1
and 4 at sections A, B, C and D for the cone and the funnel cases.
For both the cone and the funnel cases, the plastic strain at any
section is greater for the outer side of the sheet (element 8) than
it is for the inner side of the sheet (element 1). This is because of
local stretching and bending of the sheet around the tool which
causes the element on the outer side of the sheet (element 8) to
stretch more as compared to the element on the inner side (element 1). This results in a higher plastic strain on the outer side of
the sheet. Since, damage accumulation is directly proportional to
plastic strain (Equation (3)), a straightforward conclusion is that by
itself, local bending of the sheet around the tool will attempt to increase
damage accumulation on the outer side of the sheet as compared to
the inner side of the sheet.
However, attributing the damage behavior observed in Fig. 8
entirely to this phenomenon would be premature. As shown in
Equation (3) it is not only the plastic strain p but also the reference fracture strain f that plays a role in determining damage
accumulation. The following sections will explore this facet further
by examining in greater detail the factors that affect f , i.e., hydrostatic pressure in Section 4.3 and through-the-thickness shear in
Section 4.4.
The damage plasticity model uses a damage variable D to signify the accumulation of damage and loss of the materials ability
to take stresses during deformation. An element is removed when
the damage variable D reaches a value of 1.0 and a crack is said to
occur at a location where all elements through the thickness of the
sheet have been removed. Since we are interested in the occurrence
of fracture therefore, in this sub-section, the evolution of damage
variable, D, in SPIF will be examined rst. Fig. 8a and b show the
evolutions of the damage variable D from section A to section D for
the cone and the funnel, respectively.
1579
Fig. 7. (a) Schematic of sections A, B, C and D along the component wall at which the deformation history from FEA is examined. (b) Nomenclature of elements through the
thickness of the sheet (contours of damage variable D shown).
Fig. 8. Evolution of damage variable D at sections A, B, C, and D for the (a) 70 cone (b) funnel shape.
Fig. 9. Evolution of plastic strain p at sections A, B, C, and D for the (a) 70 cone (b) funnel shape.
1580
Fig. 10. Evolution of hydrostatic pressure at sections A, B, C, and D for the (a) 70 cone, (b) funnel shape.
the contours shown in Fig. 11a the highlighted region of the blank is
in contact with the tool. Fig. 11b shows the same region of the blank
after the tool has passed over this region and local springback has
occurred. It can be seen that the local springback results in negative
hydrostatic pressure on the inner side of the sheet and positive
hydrostatic pressure on the outer side of the sheet.
In terms of the effect of hydrostatic pressure (p) on f (Equation (5)), the trends shown in Fig. 11 mean that the pressure term
Fig. 11. Contours of hydrostatic pressure on the deformed blank at simulation time of (a) 2.3885 s (b) 2.3942 s.
1581
Fig. 12. Evolution of through-the-thickness shear along the tool motion direction (zx ) at sections A, B, C, D for the (a) 70 cone (b) funnel shape.
direction of the component) the tool drags the material along with
it, causing a through-the-thickness shear zx . Fig. 12 shows that zx
increases from sections A to D and is higher on the inner side of the
sheet, i.e., for element 1 than for element 8.
Since a spiral toolpath is being used, the tool continuously moves
down in the z direction while moving in the x and y directions and
therefore drags material in a direction perpendicular to the toolpath as well. Fig. 13 shows the evolution of through-the-thickness
shear in a direction perpendicular to the tool motion, i.e., zy . Again,
shear is greater on the inner side of the sheet as compared to
the outer side of the sheet. Note that there are three important
trends associated with shear, i.e., (1) greater shear on the inner
side of the sheet, (2) increase in shear along the toolpath motion
with deformation depth, and (3) shear along the toolpath direction
being greater than shear in a direction perpendicular to the toolpath motion. All these trends have been shown in the past work of
Jackson and Allwood (2009). The effects of the observed trends of
hydrostatic pressure and through-the-thickness shear on f will be
discussed below.
4.5. Reference fracture strain (f )
In the present material model f depends on the hydrostatic
pressure p and the on the shear, via the Lode angle L as shown
pressure term (1 + kp p)(1/n) and a Lode angle term ( 3/2 cos L )(1/n) .
The evolution of these factors with plastic strain is individually plotted (Figs. 14 and 15 respectively), for elements 1 and 4, at section D,
i.e., where the through-the-thickness crack rst begins. Note here
that a higher value of the product term implies a higher f which in
turn means that damage accumulation is retarded, and vice versa.
It can be observed that for both the cone and the funnel the
pressure term is lesser than 1.0 for element 1 and greater than 1.0
1582
Fig. 13. Evolution of through-the-thickness shear perpendicular to the tool motion direction (zy ) at sections A, B, C, and D for the (a) 70 cone (b) funnel shape.
Fig. 14. Comparison of modication factor, pressure factor and Lode angle terms for 70 cone.
Fig. 15. Comparison of modication factor, pressure factor and Lode angle terms for the funnel shape.
1. Local bending of the sheet around the tool, which causes greater
p on the outer side of the sheet. The effect is to increase damage
accumulation on the outer side of the sheet.
2. Through-the-thickness shear, which is lower on the outer side
of the sheet and causes f to be lower on the outer side of the
sheet. The effect is to further increase damage accumulation on
the outer side of the sheet than on the inner side of the sheet.
The cumulative effect of these phenomena is to increase damage
accumulation on the outer side of the sheet causing the crack to
begin on the outer side of the sheet. Therefore, it is a combination of
local bending and through-the-thickness shear that governs evolution
of damage, failure occurrence and the crack initiation location in SPIF.
5. Noodle theory for fracture in SPIF
As mentioned in Section 3, the forming of the 70 cone with a
larger punch was also simulated and the predicted fracture depth
was about 2 mm lesser than that of the same cone simulated using
SPIF. This section attempts to uncover the reasons behind this
increased formability in SPIF by comparing the deformation history
in SPIF to that in the punch forming case in Section 5.1 followed by
a description of the proposed noodle theory in Section 5.3.
5.1. Deformation mechanisms in punch forming case
Fig. 16a shows that for the larger punch forming case damage
accumulation for both elements 1 and 4 is the same. Fig. 16b shows
that the plastic strain on either side of the sheet is similar as well.
Examining the shear strains at sections A, B, C and D (Fig. 17)
shows that the shear is several orders of magnitude smaller than in
SPIF, indicating that the dominant deformation mechanism in the
larger punch forming case is tension along the component wall.
Observe that in Fig. 16a, i.e., in the punch forming case, the plastic
strain and damage are concentrated at section D. Also there is a
sudden increase in the plastic strain and damage rate at section
D at a z displacement of around 11 mm. In comparison, in SPIF
(Figs. 8a and 9a) the plastic strain and the damage are much higher
very early on during the deformation, accumulate more uniformly
along sections A, B, C and D and at no point there is a sudden increase
in the plastic strain rate or damage rate. Physically this means that
in SPIF plastic strain and damage are spread out more evenly along
the formed component wall as compared to the punch forming case.
5.2. Impact of shear on increased formability in SPIF
The objective of this sub-section is to compare fracture in SPIF
and in conventional forming, and to answer the question, Does
greater shear in SPIF as compared to conventional forming completely explain the higher formability observed in SPIF?
Fig. 17 shows that shear in conventional forming is negligible as
compared to shear in SPIF (Figs. 12 and 13). Past work has noted
this fact (Jackson and Allwood, 2009) and it has also been proposed (Allwood et al., 2007; Allwood and Shouler, 2009) that this
increased shear in SPIF might be the reason for increased formability in SPIF as compared to conventional forming. Plotting the
components of the fracture envelope for the punch case and the
SPIF case (Fig. 18) shows that f is indeed much lower for the punch
case as compared to SPIF, especially on the inner side of the sheet.
Since the Lode factor dominates the value of f in SPIF, and the Lode
angle is indicative of shear, higher shear is the primary reason for
higher f in SPIF. If shear were the only factor increasing formability
in SPIF and since f is inversely proportional to damage (Equation
(3)), the result should have been lower damage accumulation in
SPIF as compared to conventional forming.
1583
However, Figs. 8a and 16a show that in comparison to conventional forming, damage accumulation is much higher in SPIF.
Comparing the ratio of plastic strain to fracture strain at sections A,
B, C, D for SPIF and the punch forming case (Fig. 19) shows that the
ratio (p /f ) is much higher in SPIF than in conventional forming.
Therefore, in-spite of a higher value of f , the value of p is so
much higher in SPIF that it overwhelms the effect of higher f .
Essentially, while greater shear in SPIF does attempt to retard damage accumulation as compared to conventional forming, greater
local bending in SPIF overwhelms this effect and causes greater
damage accumulation. This should result in the formability in
SPIF being reduced as compared to conventional forming, which
does not happen. Therefore, increased shear only partially explains
increased formability in SPIF as compared to conventional forming.
The obvious question that arises is, if damage accumulation is
greater in SPIF then what is the reason for increased formability
in SPIF? The answer is obtained by comparing material instability
between SPIF and conventional forming, which will be discussed
next.
5.3. Increased formability in SPIF: the noodle theory
As described in Section 3, the material model used in this
work also incorporates material localization in the form of diffused and localized necking. Examining these predictions provides
an explanation for the increased formability in SPIF as compared to
conventional forming. Note that here material localization refers to
the onset of material instability. Jackson and Allwood (2009) mentioned localization of deformation from a more widely distributed
area to a local area around the tool contact zone as the formed
structure became more rigid. However, by localization they meant a
geometric concentration of deformation into the local contact area
around the tool. The geometric concentration of deformation into
a local area around the tool contact may or may not cause material
instability.
Figs. 20 and 21 show the localization contours, z depths and
plastic strains for the punch forming case and SPIF, respectively.
In the localization ag plots, the localization ag has a value of 1.0
(blue color) when the material is in a diffused necking state and a
value of 3.0 (red color) when the material has reached a localized
necking state (i.e., local shear bands have formed). The contours
shown in (a) are at the onset of diffused necking, in (b) are at the
onset of localized necking and in (c) are just before fracture occurs.
Fig. 20a and b show that in the punch forming case diffused
necking begins at a z depth of 8.0 mm and localized necking begins
at about 11.0 mm. Once localized necking starts, the plastic strain
becomes highly concentrated into this unstable region of the material, till fracture occurs in this region (Fig. 20c) leading to fracture
within about 2.6 mm (i.e., at a z depth of 13.6 mm). This phenomenon of localized necking being followed rapidly by fracture
is a very well documented phenomenon in conventional forming
processes. In fact the prevention of localized necking has been a
well known way of preventing failure in conventional forming processes.
In contrast, in SPIF diffused necking begins earlier at a z depth
of around 5.4 mm and localized necking begins at around 8.4 mm
(Fig. 21a and b) respectively. This earlier onset of diffused necking
can be attributed to the inherently local deformation in SPIF. Local
deformation in SPIF causes greater plastic strains to be induced
in the material very early on as compared to the punch forming
case, evident in sections AC in Figs. 9a and 16b. This increases the
damage rate (Figs. 8a and 16a) and weakening rate very quickly,
early on during the deformation in SPIF. Since the onset of diffused
necking is accelerated by greater weakening rate and damage
rate (Equation (6)), and early on during the deformation both of
these are higher in SPIF than in the punch forming case, therefore,
1584
Fig. 16. Evolution of (a) damage variable: D (b) plastic strain: p , at sections A, B, C and D for the punch forming case.
Fig. 17. Evolution of through-the-thickness shear along (a) hoop direction (zx ) (b) component wall (zy ), at sections A, B, C and D for the punch forming case.
1585
Fig. 18. Comparison of modication factor, pressure factor and Lode angle terms for 70 cone formed with (a) SPIF (b) large punch.
over a much larger localized necking region and has greater magnitude before fracture, as compared to the punch case. Therefore,
the component wall has a more uniform strain distribution in SPIF.
This phenomenon can be better understood by a simple analogy,
i.e., the so-called noodle theory which is as follows. Consider a
single string of wheat noodles that is held at one end and then
needs to be stretched as much as possible.
One obvious strategy is to start pulling at the free end of the
string (Fig. 22a). As a result, at some location on the string the
material will begin to localize, as shown in red vertical stripes in
Fig. 22b, a strain concentration will develop and eventually fracture
will occur (Fig. 22c). This is similar to what happens in conventional
forming. An alternate strategy would be to stretch by smaller increments all along the string. One would start at a point a little bit away
from the xed end of the string (section AA in Fig. 22d) and stretch
by a small increment (say s), while moving the location at which
the deformation is applied by small regular increments (say c)
towards the free end of the string (Fig. 22e), i.e., from section AA to
Fig. 19. Ratio (p /f ) at sections A, B, C, and D for 70 cone formed using (a) SPIF (b) large punch.
1586
Fig. 20. Contours of localization ag, z depth and plastic strain at (a) at onset of diffused necking (b) at onset of localized necking (c) just before fracture, for punch forming
of the 70 cone.
deformation but also on the location of application of the deformation. Note that in the schematic representation of the noodle
theory shown in Fig. 22(ef), for the SPIF strategy, the localized
neck growth is more in the region near the actual section of load
application. This is because as the distance of the neck from the
actual point of load application increases the ability of this neck to
share some of the deformation reduces. As a result, after the onset
of localized necking, it is always the neck closest to the contact zone
Fig. 21. Contours of localization ag, z depth and plastic strain at (a) at onset of diffused necking (b) at onset of localized necking (c) just before fracture, for SPIF of the 70
cone.
1587
Fig. 22. (a) Stretching the string at the free end (b) material localization at a single location on the string. (c) Fracture at location of material localization. (d) Stretching the
string by s at location c from the free end (e) continuous material localization along length of the string (f) elongation to a greater length without fracture.
of plastic strain along the component wall. This also means that
even after the tool has moved on the previously formed region
is actually taking up some deformation in the subsequent tool
passes. On the other hand for the punch forming case, the plastic
strain is concentrated at section D. In fact, at section D after a
certain point (at which point this region is in a state of localized
necking) the plastic strain rate increases dramatically indicating a
rapid concentration of strain in this region after localized necking.
The existence of a larger localized region in SPIF is further supported by the observation of material localization all along the outer
surface of the formed SPIF components (Fig. 23). The components
shown are funnels formed with an incremental depth of 0.5 mm.
The z depth between the localized bands was measured using a
depth gauge to be approximately 0.5 mm. Furthermore, it was visually observed during the forming process that these shear bands
initiated and grew in the regions where the tool was currently in
contact with the sheet. Fracture always occurred at a previously
generated shear band closest to the current position of the tool.
6. Discussion
The goal of this section is interpret the results obtained in this
work in an attempt to correlate it to work done in the past and
to examine the implications of the observations made, on the SPIF
process.
plastic strain on the outer side of the sheet cause greater damage
accumulation on the outer side of the sheet (Fig. 8). This causes the
crack in SPIF to begin on the outer side of the sheet and propagate
inwards. Therefore, when considering failure in SPIF the combined
effect of both local bending and shear must be accounted for.
6.2. Inuence of shear on formability in SPIF as compared to
conventional forming
It has been proposed in the past (Allwood et al., 2007; Allwood
and Shouler, 2009) that increased shear in SPIF could be the reason for increased formability in SPIF as compared to conventional
forming. This work partially supports this theory by showing that
increased shear does increase f in SPIF (Fig. 18) which should
cause lesser damage accumulation in SPIF. At the same time, as
compared to conventional forming, the increase in damage accumulation caused by local bending of the sheet around the SPIF tool
overwhelms the reduction in damage accumulation due to higher
shear (Fig. 19). Consequently, damage accumulation is faster in SPIF
than in conventional forming (Figs. 8a and 16a). Therefore, attributing the increased formability in SPIF as compared to conventional
forming, solely to shear, might not be a complete explanation. This
raises the question of why formability is higher in SPIF than conventional forming.
6.3. The Noodle theory of failure in SPIF
Martins et al. (2008) proposed that failure in SPIF occurs by uniform thinning without evidence of localized necking. This work
shows what appears to be localized necking on the outer side of
the components formed with SPIF (Fig. 23). At the same time it is
important to note that the occurrence of localized necking is a fairly
subjective phenomenon as far as experimental observations are
concerned. It is very difcult to decide whether the occurrence of
what might appear to be a neck is purely a geometric phenomenon,
purely a material deformation affect or a combination of both of
1588
Fig. 23. Regions along the outer surface of SPIF components indicating material localization.
these. However, their claim that in SPIF a neck does not grow completely to failure upon initiation is supported by the current work
as well as shown in Section 5.3.
Emmens et al. (2009) examined formability in SPIF in terms of
the suppression or retardation of necking. They noted that while
localization of material in SPIF is inevitable, the increase in formability as compared to conventional forming can be explained in
terms of mechanisms which reduce stress at the location of the
originated neck to a level below that required for further growth of
the neck. This work shows that material localization is very much an
essential characteristic of SPIF due to the local nature of deformation in the process (Figs. 20 and 21). This happens because in-spite
of higher shear the accumulation of plastic strain, and therefore
of damage, is much higher very early on during the deformation in
SPIF. This should cause earlier onset of material instability and fracture in SPIF as compared to conventional forming. While material
instability does begin early on, actual fracture occurs much later in
SPIF than in conventional forming.
A new noodle theory is proposed that explains the increased
formability in SPIF as compared to conventional forming in-spite
of the fact that damage accumulation and onset of material instability is faster in SPIF. The theory goes farther than taking material
localization as an indicator of the occurrence of fracture by analyzing what happens after material localization. It is shown that
the inherently local nature of deformation in SPIF allows the generation of a larger region of unstable, but not fractured, material
before actual failure occurs (Fig. 21). It is proposed that it is the
ability of this region, in essence, to share some of the deformation in the subsequent passes of the tool which is the root cause for
increased formability in SPIF (Fig. 22). The fact that the crack occurs
around the tool contact zone instead of at the rst originated neck is
explained by the fact that the extent to which a neck grows depends
on not only the extent of the subsequent deformation but also on
the location of the application of this deformation.
This theory might also explain the reason for the inability to
accurately predict failure in SPIF using conventional FLCs. Conventional FLCs predict the occurrence of material localization. Using
FLCs to predict failure in conventional sheet forming (Filice et al.,
2002; Hussain et al., 2009) makes the assumption that the transition from material localization to fracture is so fast that keeping
a margin of safety from the occurrence of material localization is
enough to prevent fracture. This assumption is true for conventional processes, as is shown in the simulation of the punch forming
case, where material localization is quickly followed by fracture
(Fig. 20). However, for SPIF the transition from material localization
to actual fracture is much slower in SPIF than in conventional forming due to the local nature of deformation in the process. This is why
7. Conclusions
This work uses a fracture model in FEA to predict forming forces,
thinning and fracture in SPIF. The material model is calibrated using
the forming force history for a cone shape and validated using a
funnel shape by comparing experimental forming forces, thinning
and fracture depths with predicted values from FEA. Additionally,
to compare SPIF to a conventional forming case, the forming of the
same cone with a larger punch is also simulated using the same
material model. It is shown that the fracture depth in SPIF is greater
than that in the punch forming case. Eight elements through the
thickness of the sheet are used and it is ensured that hourglass
control, mass scaling and speeding up of the tool have a negligible
effect on the simulation results. The deformation mechanisms in
SPIF are found to correlate well to past experimental results, in a
qualitative manner.
The deformation mechanisms in SPIF are analyzed in-depth
using results from FEA. The following are the main conclusions:
1. Fracture in SPIF is controlled by both local bending and shear.
Local stretching and bending of the sheet around the hemispherical end of the tool cause higher plastic strain on the outer
side of the sheet, which increases damage on the outer side as
compared to the inner side of the sheet. Greater through-thethickness shear on the inner side of the sheet also has a similar
effect on damage accumulation. The combined effect of these
two phenomena is the initiation of the crack on the outer side of
the sheet which then propagates towards the inner side of the
sheet.
2. Greater shear in SPIF only partially explains the increased formability as compared to conventional forming. Shear is greater in
SPIF than in conventional forming which does have an effect of
retarding damage accumulation in SPIF by increasing f , especially on the inner side of the sheet. However, local bending in
SPIF is so much higher that it overwhelms the effect of increased
shear and increases damage evolution in SPIF as compared to
conventional forming. In-spite of the greater damage accumulation in SPIF, fracture depth and plastic strain before fracture
are greater than in conventional forming. Therefore, increased
shear in SPIF cannot be held solely responsible for increased
formability as compared to conventional forming.
3. The local nature of deformation in SPIF is the root cause for
increased formability as compared to conventional forming. A
so-called noodle theory, is proposed as an explanation for the
increased formability in SPIF as compared to conventional forming. This theory proposes that local deformation in SPIF increases
plastic strain and damage very early on during the deformation and causes earlier onset of material instability, as compared
to conventional forming. However, due to the local nature of
deformation in SPIF this region with material instability is not
deformed all the way to fracture. In subsequent tool passes this
unstable region takes up some of the deformation and the maximum plastic strain and deformed depth before fracture are
increased. Therefore, the local nature of deformation is the primary reason for increased formability in SPIF as compared to
conventional forming.
4. The link between process parameters and their effect on fracture
can be explained via their effect on shear and local bending. This
work establishes a link between shear and local bending, the
consequent occurrence of material instability and subsequent
fracture in SPIF. Developing a further link between operational
parameters and their qualitative and quantitative inuence on
shear and local bending can be used to qualitatively explain the
effect of process parameters on formability.
5. Future work. While this work examines the effects of local bending around the tool, stretching along the component wall and
1589
1590
Silva, M.B., Skjoedt, M., Bay, N., Martins, P.A.F., 2009. Revisiting single-point incremental forming and formability/failure diagrams by means of nite elements
and experimentation. Journal of Strain Analysis 44, 221234.
Smith, L.M., Averill, R.C., Lucas, J.P., Stoughton, T.B., Matin, P.H., 2003. Inuence of
transverse normal stress on sheet metal formability. Journal of Plasticity 19,
15671583.
Szekeres, A., Ham, M., Jeswiet, J., 2007. Force measurement in pyramid shaped parts
with a spindle mounted force sensor. Key Engineering Materials 344, 551558.
van Bael, A., Eyckens, P., He, S., Boufoux, C., Henrard, C., Habraken, A.M., Dulfou,
J., van Houtte, P., 2007. Forming limit predictions for single point incremental
sheet metal forming. Proceedings of the 10th ESAFORM Conference on Material
Forming, AIP Conference Proceedings 907, 309314.
Xue, L., 2007a. Damage accumulation and fracture initiation in uncracked ductile
solids subjected to triaxial loading. International Journal Solids and Structures
44 (16), 51635181.
Xue, L., 2007b. Ductile fracture modeling-theory, experimental investigation and numerical verication. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Xue, L., 2009. Stress based fracture envelope for damage plastic solids. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 76 (3), 419438.
Xue, L., 2010. Localization conditions and diffused necking for damage plastic solids.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77 (8), 12751297.
Xue, L., Belytschko, T., 2010. Fast methods for determining instabilities of elasticplastic damage models through closed-form expressions. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 84, 14901518.
Yao, H., Cao, J., 2002. Prediction of forming limit curves using an anisotropic yield
function with prestrain induced backstress. International Journal of Plasticity 18
(8), 10131038.