Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/manpro

Technical paper

Springback control of sheet metal air bending process

Jyhwen Wang a,b, , Suhas Verma b , Richard Alexander b , Jenn-Terng Gau c
a
Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Press brake bending is a commonly used process for sheet metal part fabrication. It has been observed that
Received 1 December 2005 the final bend angle, which is the angle achieved upon removal of the punch, is smaller than the initial
Received in revised form bend angle. This springback is due to the elastic recovery of the sheet metal. Various theoretical models
15 July 2007
have been proposed to predict the springback using the tooling geometry and the known properties of
Accepted 18 September 2007
Available online 13 August 2008
the sheet metal. However, in a production environment, the actual properties of any given workpiece may
vary from the nominal properties of the lot. This variation causes the actual springback to deviate from
the theoretical predictions. This paper presents a practical incremental bending methodology to control
punch displacement to achieve more accurate final bend angles. In the proposed approach, workpiece
properties are estimated from measured loaded and unloaded bend angles. The estimated properties are
used to determine the final punch position required to obtain the desired bend angle after springback. A
series of bending experiments was performed. It was found that the proposed method can better predict
springback and effectively control the bend angle variation in a production environment.
2008 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Press brake bending is a metal forming process for producing
straight-line bends. The process is performed on metal sheets or
plates by prescribing a punch displacement in a press brake. There
are two types of bend dies commonly used in industry. In V-die
bending (Fig. 1a), the process is performed using a matching punch
and die. By lowering the ram, the punch pushes the workpiece to
the bottom of the die to obtain a bend angle. Air bending (Fig. 1b)
is performed using a die having a pair of shoulders. The die gap is
set according to the calculated requirements, and the sheet metal
is placed on the shoulders. The punch at the mid-span of the
sheet metal is given a displacement, and the die is deep enough
to avoid the sheet from striking the bottom of the die. In both V-
die and air bending, when the punch load is removed at the end
of the deformation process, it can be observed that the bend angle
becomes smaller than the initial loaded angle, as shown in Fig. 2.
This elastic recovery phenomenon is known as springback. Due to
the sheet metal contacting the bottom of the die, V-die bending
can result in less springback compared to air bending. For thick
and higher strength materials, however, tonnage requirements
Corresponding author at: Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial
Distribution, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. Tel.: +1 979 845 4903;
fax: +1 979 862 7969.
E-mail address: jwang@tamu.edu (J. Wang).
1526-6125/$ see front matter 2008 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.manpro.2007.09.001
become prohibitive for V-die bending, and air bending is the
preferred option. Another advantage of air bending is that it allows
a variety of angles to be formed with a minimum number of
tool combinations. In addition, air bending permits overbending
to compensate for the springback effect. This paper presents a
springback control methodology for the air bending process.
Springback due to simple bending has been widely investigated.
Two of the earliest works in the field were performed by
Schroeder [1] and Gardiner [2]. Schroeder proposed a method
to quantitatively predict the residual stress distribution and the
magnitude of springback. He assumed the workpiece to be a
narrow beam; that assumption can produce inaccurate results
because transverse stresses present during forming are ignored.
Gardiner developed a generalized mathematical analysis for
springback prediction. He assumed the thickness and length of the
workpiece to remain unchanged and the neutral axis to remain
mid-way through the sheet. On knowing the values of Youngs
modulus, yield strength, and thickness for the sheet metal, a chart
of initial bend radius of sheet metal (R) versus final bend radius of
sheet metal (r) was prepared. This chart was utilized to specify the
initial bend radius to which sheet metal needs to be bent to achieve
the final bend radius or desired final bend angle.
A number of authors have carried out theoretical analysis to
quantitatively predict the magnitude of springback and/or residual
stress distribution after forming metal sheets. Alexander [3] and
Shaffer and Ungar [4] assumed the workpiece to be a wide sheet
and the stressstrain properties to be perfectly plastic and elastic-
perfectly plastic, respectively. Crandall and Dahl [5] assumed the
22 J. Wang et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127
Fig. 1. (a) V-die bending and (b) Air bending.
workpiece to be a narrow beam and idealized the stressstrain
behavior as perfectly plastic. Botros [6] conducted an analysis
giving a relationship of degree of springback with the basic
dimensions and properties of the material. He found that the
bending process could be considered as a plane strain process
because the bending effect (thickness reduction of 3%5%) did not
propagate through the sides of the strip more than the length of
the metal sheet in contact with the die face. It was concluded that
the degree of springback increases as the radius of bend increases
and the thickness decreases; that is, an increase in severity
of the bending conditions reduces the degree of springback.
Experimental results by Botros show that the neutral axis shifts by
an amount that varies from 3% to 5% of the sheet thickness and
makes a significant contribution to the springback angle. Queener
and De Angelis [7] derived equations for springback and residual
stress distribution as a function of die radius, sheet thickness, and
stressstrain characteristics of the material. The workpiece was
assumed to be a wide sheet of an elasticplastic strain-hardening
material. They assumed the neutral axis to remain in the center of
the sheet and radial stresses to be negligible.
Efforts were made to further improve springback predictions.
A thorough study was conducted by Davies [8] concerning the
influence of material thickness and die variables on springback
in four different types of steel. It was found that the thinner
the material and larger the anvil radius, the greater was the
springback. Davies proposed that for minimum springback, the
die gap should be as small as possible and the anvil radius
should be less than 2.5 times the material thickness. Johnson
and Yu [9] further extended Gardiners work to consider linearly
hardening materials. Raghupathi, Karima, and Altan [10] analyzed
the bending process based on an isotropic material behavior
under a uniaxial stress state. They assumed a linear strain-
hardening behavior. Yang and Shima [11] proposed a similar
process model using a power-law hardening relationship. A more
accurate elastoplastic bending model would incorporate the true
and nonlinear strain distribution across the sheet thickness, the
shift of neutral axis, strain hardening, and normal anisotropy
of the sheet. The model would also include the tool geometry,
dimensions, and frictional conditions. All of the above parameters
have been taken into account by Wang, Kinzel, and Altan [12].
Air bending simulations by Wang, Kinzel, and Altan show that
springback is proportional to the bending moment and the bent
arc length between the punch and the die. The bending moment is
found to be dependent on strength, strain hardening, and normal
anisotropy. More recently, a finite element approach has also
been used to calculate the amount of springback in air bending,
the total equivalent plastic strain, and the equivalent von Mises
stresses [13].
Many methods have been proposed to control springback.
Overbending through a deeper punch stroke is one of the
commonly used methods to control springback in air bending.
Overbending compensation for springback can be achieved by
two general approaches. In the modeling approach, efforts were
made to model springback and determine the overbending
punch displacement for a given set of material parameters and
Fig. 2. Springback after air bending.
tooling geometry [10,12]. Because the springback prediction is
based on the nominal thickness and properties but the actual
springback is due to the true thickness and properties of the
workpiece, the effectiveness of the modeling approach is generally
not satisfactory. In a production environment, for example,
a few sheet samples are used for initial press brake setup.
The variation in the subsequent sheets often leads to a shape
control problem. The feedback approach involves an iterative
procedure where a certain parameter is monitored and punch
travel is adjusted to approach the desired unload bend angle.
Gossard and Allison [14] developed a trial-and-error scheme
where the loaded and unloaded bend angles are monitored
and punch travel is adjusted without analyzing the mechanics
of bending. In this approach, many angle measurements are
required, and the accuracy often depends on the number of
loading/unloading cycles performed. Stelson and Gossard [15]
and Stelson [16,17] proposed a hybrid adaptive controller for
springback compensation in air bending. The method relies on
measuring the punch forcedisplacement curve during the initial
part of bending process. Based on the forcedisplacement data, the
thickness and material properties are calculated. This information
is then used to calculate the correct punch displacement to obtain
a desired unloaded angle. The approach has the advantage of
eliminating multiple loadingunloading of the sheet metal and
angle measurement. However, continuous load measuring sensors
are not normally integrated into the tooling or the presses.
An air bending angle control system can potentially minimize
setup time, improve product quality, and reduce rework. The ob-
jective of the present work is to develop a feedback control method
to accurately achieve a desired unloaded bend angle. The method
combines the advantages offered by the methods proposed by Gos-
sard and Allison [14], Stelson and Gossard [15], and Stelson [16,17].
Instead of the load-cell feedback, an alternative is demonstrated
that uses bend angle measurement directly to correct springback.
As some commercial CNC press brakes already have sensors inte-
grated to measure bend angle, the present approach can be read-
ily applied. The framework and the applicability of the method are
presented in the next section.
2. An incremental bending approach for springback control
Given the precise thickness and properties of the workpiece,
previously developed mathematical models can predict the
 J. Wang et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127 23

Fig. 3. LVDT application for springback measurement.

Table 1
Tooling and material for single-stroke and multiple-stroke air bending comparison
Tooling geometry

Punch radius 1.98 mm

Die radius 2.38 mm
Die width (opening) 27.94 mm
Material: A 1008CS
Yield strength 234 MPa
Thickness 1.15 mm

springback due to plane strain bending with a reasonable accuracy.

Thus, it is proposed to use the press brake as a testing device
to determine the thickness and properties of the workpiece. The
information is then used to calculate springback and to prescribe
punch displacement.
In press brake bending, the loaded and unloaded bend angles
can be measured by angular displacement transducers (ADT) or
calculated from linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)
measurements. Fig. 3 shows a simple, low-cost LVDT arrangement
for measuring loaded and unloaded bend angles. The proposed
incremental bending methodology is shown in Fig. 4. In this
approach, the tooling geometry is known and the rated material
properties and thickness are used as a reference. A series of punch
Fig. 4. An incremental bending approach for air bending springback control.
displacements that generates a series of bend angles smaller than
the desired final angle is prescribed. From the multiple pairs of
Table 2
loaded and unloaded bend angles, the thickness and material Experimental results from single-stroke and multiple-stroke air bending
properties of the workpiece are predicted based on a mathematical
Punch Loaded Unloaded bend Unloaded angle
model. The iterative process can lead to the estimation of the best- disp. (mm) bend angle angle difference
fit thickness and properties of the workpiece. The information is Single Multiple
then used to determine the final punch position for springback stroke stroke
compensation. Moving the punch to the calculated position, the 4.06 18.0 15.0 15.1 0.1
desired bend angle is obtained after unloading. 6.60 29.0 27.5 27.8 0.3
It should be noted that the proposed methodology requires 7.87 36.0 33.0 33.1 0.1
multiple/incremental strokes to complete the bending operation. 8.38 39.0 35.5 35.2 0.3
10.41 45.5 43.0 43.0 0.0
However, the mathematical models that can be used to estimate
All angles in degrees.
the material properties and to calculate the final punch position are
based on single-stroke bending. Thus, it is desirable to demonstrate
Although the experimental investigation showed the applica-
that the number of loadingunloading cycles does not have a
bility of using single-stroke theoretical models for feedback control
significant impact on the springback behavior of the material. That
of incremental air bending process, one can argue that the work-
is, the stressstrain history and the release of residual stress prior
piece may have different material properties because the experi-
to the final stroke have a negligible effect on the final unloaded
ments were performed on different sheet metal samples from the
bend angle.
same batch. Thus, finite element simulations were conducted to
To compare the final bend angles from single stroke and further investigate the variations. An explicit dynamic FEA code,
incremental bending processes, experiments and finite element LS-DYNA, was used to simulate both single- and multiple-stroke
analyses were conducted. The tooling geometry and material data incremental bending processes with the same input material prop-
for the experiments are given in Table 1. Five final punch positions erties defined in Table 3. For springback calculation in each un-
were used in the experiments. For incremental bending operations, loading cycle, an implicit procedure is called. Five different final
three increments/strokes were used to reach the final punch punch positions were specified and the bend angles were mea-
positions. As shown in Table 2, the average differences in unloaded sured. As shown in Fig. 5, the final unloaded angles achieved by
bend angles between single- and multiple-stroke processes are single-stroke and incremental bending processes are almost iden-
small (less than 0.2 degree). tical with an averaged deviation of less than 0.01 degree. This is
24 J. Wang et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127

Fig. 6. Approximation of bend geometry.

Fig. 5. FEA comparison of unloaded angles achieved by single-stroke and multiple-
stroke bending.

Table 3
Material properties for FEA simulations
Material property

Youngs modulus (E) 73 077 MPa

Yield strength (Y ) 90 MPa
Poissons ratio ( ) 0.3
Strength coefficient (K ) 266 MPa
Normal anisotropy value 0.73
Strain hardening exponent 0.134

reasonable because without variations in material thickness and

properties a better agreement between unload angles from single-
and multiple-stroke operations can be achieved through finite el-
ement simulation.
Fig. 7. Effect of thickness and material properties on springback.

3. Implementation of the incremental air bending process

where K is the strength coefficient and n is the strain-hardening
In the proposed approach, the thickness and the material exponent.
properties are predicted from the intermediate loaded and In the mathematical model developed by Gardiner [2], the
unloaded bend angles using a mathematical model. The final punch springback can be further simplified and characterized as:
displacement is also calculated from a theoretical model. Thus,  3  
R RY RY
the effectiveness of springback compensation depends on the =4 3 + 1. (4)
mathematical models used in Steps 5 and 7 in Fig. 4. Therefore, it is r ET ET
of primary interest to understand the sensitivity of the parameters Assuming the single-curvature bend radius is tangent to two
in springback based on these mathematical models. straight sections, the initial (loaded) bend radius R can be
In the air bending process, the bending moment is linearly approximated from the tooling geometry, the material thickness,
distributed from the maximum value at the punch tip to zero at and the measured bend angle as shown in Fig. 6:
the die contact. This results in regions in the sheet metal with
fully elastic and elasticplastic deformation modes. To simplify w tan 1 + T2 d
the geometry for practical implementation, the nonconstant bend R= (5)
sec 1 1
radius is approximated by a single bend radius such that simple but
reasonably accurate models can be used. Hosford and Caddell [18] where w is the approximate half die width, 1 is the loaded bend
presented springback models that can be used in Step 5. For an angle, and d is the punch travel depth with thickness offset.
elastic-ideally plastic material: Based on Eqs. (1)(5), the effects of sheet metal thickness (T )
and material properties (E, Y , and n) on springback were evaluated.

2 3Y 1 2 The degree of springback is characterized as (1/R) (1/r ) and


1 1
= (1) is plotted versus the percentage variation of the parameters.
R r ET
Although a nonlinear relationship is expected, it is found that the
where R is the initial loaded bend radius, r is the bend radius effect of the parameters on springback is close to linear in the range
after unloading/springback, Y is the yield strength, E is Youngs of variation (20%) plotted in Fig. 7. The sensitivity of springback to
modulus, is Poissons ratio, and T is the sheet metal thickness. the parameters can be determined from the slope of the curves. As
For a work-hardening material: the practical variation of the materials work-hardening exponent,
"
#  n, is small (<5%) and its effect is insignificant (small slope in
K 0 1 2
 n
1 1 6 T Fig. 7), no further effort was made to predict the work-hardening
= (2)
R r 2n ET 2R exponent from the loaded and unloaded bend angles.
 (n+1)/2 Predicting the thickness and material properties of the work-
0 4 piece from multiple pairs of loaded and unloaded angles is a non-
K =K (3) trivial task. For example, based on Gardiners [2] model shown in
3
 J. Wang et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127 25

Table 4 Table 5
Rated properties of materials used in the experiments Probable thickness and property values for ASTM A1011 material
Material T (mm) E (GPa) Y (MPa) T (mm) E (GPa) Y (MPa)

ASTM A 1011 CS 3.36 207 295 3.54 209 324

ASTM A 1031 CS 1.90 207 283 3.45 207a 314
3.37a 205 304
3.28 295a
Eq. (4), it is required to solve simultaneous nonlinear equations 3.20 289
to obtain the thickness and properties (T , Y , E). This would re- a
indicates nominal values.
quire a mathematical code (software) to be installed in the com-
puter, which adds cost for implementation. If the number of
loadedunloaded angle measurements (pairs) is more than the
number of unknowns, finding the thickness and properties be-
comes an optimization problem. Because the nominal/rated thick-
ness and properties of the material are normally available and their
variations are controlled in a production environment, a best-fit
approach is used in the current implementation. Based on the com-
mon range of variation (e.g., 3% thickness variation can be guar-
anteed by metal suppliers), finite sets of probable values of Ti , Ej ,
and Yk can be defined, where i = 1 to l, j = 1 to m, k = 1 to n, and
there are l m n sets of probable values. Given a set of probable
value (Ti , Ej , Yk ) and the initial loaded radius Rs at punch stroke s,
the unloaded radius is calculated as rs (Rs , Ti , Ej , Yk ). For a multiple-
stroke incremental bending process, the set of best-fit thickness
and material properties, (Ti , Ej , Yk ), is defined as the minimum de-
Fig. 8. Effectiveness of springback control for A1011 material.
viation between the calculated radii and the measured radii.
c
X
rs (Rs , Ti , Ej , Yk ) rms 
 
min
s =1
where rms is the measured unloaded radius at punch stroke s,
and c is the total number of strokes (or loadingunloading cycles).
Therefore, in the current implementation, Step 6 in Fig. 4 checks if
the number of a predetermined loadingunloading cycles has been
achieved. To consider the effects of work-hardening exponent and
Poissons ratio [shown in Eq. (2)], the same approach can be used
to estimate the best fit of the parameter set (T , E , K , n, ).
It can be noted that the springback models, Eqs. (1)(4), do not
include the punch travel as one of the parameters and thus cannot
be used to calculate the final punch position in Step 7. To find the
punch position, the numerical procedure presented by Raghupathi,
Karima, and Altan [10] is adopted. With the best-fit workpiece
thickness and properties and the tooling geometry, the procedure
calculates the initial loaded angle and the punch displacement
required in the final stroke to achieve the desired final unloaded
angle. The related mathematical model and the detailed numerical
procedure can be found in the reference [10].
4. Experimental results
Experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness
of the developed springback control methodology. As shown in
Table 4, two different sheet metal materials and their nominal
thicknesses and properties were obtained from a steel service
center. The material producer guarantees (1) minimum yield
strength and (2) thickness variation within 5%. For ASTM
A1011 material, the probable thickness and property values were
assigned accordingly as shown in Table 5. As the result, there are
75 (5 3 5) sets of probable (T , E , Y ) were evaluated for best
fit.
A semi-automatic press brake with the tooling parameters
listed in Table 1 was used for the experiments. A precision
universal-bevel Vernier protractor with reading to 1/12 degree is
used for angle measurement. Four desired angles after springback
(unloading) were specified at: 25 degrees (4, 11, 18), 30 degrees (4,
16, 23), 35 degrees (10, 21, 30), and 40 degrees (17, 26, 36), where
(1 , 2 , 3 ) indicate the incremental loaded bend angles prior to
the final stroke. For example, given the desired angle of 40 degrees,
(6)
the punch was moved to 17 degrees loaded angle first. The punch
retracted and the unloaded angle was measured. The process was
repeated for loaded angles of 26 and 36 degrees. Thus, three
loadingunloading cycles (therefore, three pairs of loaded and
unloaded bend angles) were used to find the thickness and material
properties that best describe the springback characteristics of
the workpiece material. It should be noted that the number
of incremental bend angles can be increased to improve the
prediction of sheet metal properties and thickness.
4.1. Effectiveness of springback control
For both A1011 and A1031 materials, experiments were
conducted on three sheet metal samples at four desired final
angles. From Figs. 8 and 9, the effectiveness of the presented
springback control methodology can be observed. The abscissa
represents the calculated final punch position, and the ordinate
is the unloaded bend angle. The results showed that the achieved
final angles are within 0.8 degree of the desired final angles,
with most of the differences within 0.5 degree. As it is observed
that the achieved angles are larger than the desired angles, it
can be concluded that the proposed approach has a tendency to
overbend the workpiece. This can be attributed to the less-than-
perfect predictions generated by the mathematical models [2,10]
implemented in this investigation.
It was also observed that the deviation of the 40 degrees
unloaded angle was larger than the other deviations. Upon
examining the tooling, it was found that slight coining, or
bottoming, took place at the final punch position. The condition
is similar to V-die bending. It changes the stress distribution and
leads to reduced springback. As the result, the unloaded angles
were larger than expected.
4.2. Verification of the estimated material properties
As the unloading cycles prior to the final stroke serve as
a material testing procedure to estimate the thickness and
properties of the workpiece, efforts were made to compare the
26 J. Wang et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127
Fig. 9. Effectiveness of springback control for A1031 material.
Table 6
Comparison of rated, estimated, and tested material properties
Properties A 1011 A 1031
E (GPa) Y (MPa) E (GPa)
Rated 207 295 207
Estimated 205 324 209
Tensile test 212 341 216
estimated properties with the properties obtained from tensile
tests. The specimens for tensile tests and air bending experiments
were prepared from the same batch of material. Table 6 lists the
rated properties (given by the material supplier), estimated best-
fit properties, and tensile test results. All test data are from the
average of four samples.
The ability to accurately estimate the properties is limited by
the defined sets of probable values. It can be observed, however,
that the yield strength from tensile tests is close to the estimated
strength and is higher than the rated yield strength. This confirms
the material producers practice that the material has to meet a
lower strength limit without an upper strength limit specification.
As the springback problem is strongly related to the consistency of
the input material, it is critical that both the upper and lower limits
of the material properties are specified.
4.3. Comparison of air bending with and without feedback control
Experiments were conducted to show the results of air bending
with and without the proposed feedback control. Based on the
rated thickness and properties of A1011, Raghupathi, Karima,
and Altans [10] procedure was used to determine the punch
displacements for 25, 30, and 35 degree desired unloaded angles.
Without feedback control, the average deviation between the
achieved angles and the specified angles is 2.1 degrees. With the
proposed multiple-stroke approach, the average deviation is 0.5
degree, as shown in Table 7. Overbending was again observed
in both experiments. This indicates that more accurate results
could be achieved by improving the adopted mathematical model.
Nevertheless, it is clear that with the help of estimated thickness
and material properties, bend angles that are very close to the
desired final angles can be achieved through the air bending
process.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a new method for springback control
in the air bending process. The method attempts to minimize
springback error by utilizing the information collected from
loadingunloading cycles. As the loaded and unloaded angles are
Table 7
Comparison of achieved bend angles
Desired Angle achieved without Angle achieved with feedback
angle feedback
25 27.0 25.5
30 32.5 30.3
35 36.9 35.8
All angles in degrees.
analyzed, a more accurate assessment of the workpiece thickness
and material properties can be achieved. The information is
then used to determine the final punch position to obtain the
desired bend angle. Although multiple unloading is required, it
is demonstrated that a very accurate final angle can be achieved
with only three cycles. The procedure can be programmed into an
automatic press brake to yield a better efficiency. In the production
environment, the thickness and the material properties can vary
from workpiece to workpiece, which leads to a shape control
problem. Thus, the ability to use feedback information to perform
real-time adjustments on the press brake is valuable because the
Y (MPa) technique can result in reduced manufacturing cost and improved
283
product quality.
312
301
References
[1] Schroeder W. Mechanics of sheet metal bending. Transactions of ASME 1943;
65:81727.
[2] Gardiner FJ. The springback of metals. Transactions of ASME 1957;79:19.
[3] Alexander JM. An analysis of the plastic bending of wide plate, and the effect
of stretching on transverse residual stresses. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers 1959;173:73.
[4] Shaffer BW, Ungar EE. Mechanics of the sheet bending process. Journal of
Applied Mechanics 1960;(v):34.
[5] Crandall SH, Dahl NC, editors. Introduction to the mechanics of solids. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1961. p. 334.
[6] Botros BM. Springback in sheet metal forming after bending. Paper no. 67.
ASME WA/PROD-17; 1967.
[7] Queener CA, De Angelis RJ. Elastic springback and residual stresses in sheet
metal parts formed by bending. Transactions of ASM 1968;61:75768.
[8] Davies RG. Springback in high-strength steels. Journal of Applied Metal
Working 1981;1(4):45.
[9] Johnson W, Yu JX. On the range of applicability of results for the springback
of an elastic/perfect plastic rectangular plate after subjecting it to biaxial pure
bending II. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1981;23(10):6317.
[10] Raghupathi PS, Karima M, Altan T. A simplified approach to calculate
springback in brake bending. In: Proc. of 11th North American manufacturing
research conf., vol. 11. 1983. p. 16571.
[11] Yang M, Shima S. Development of an intelligent V-bending process with a feed
forward control system. Advanced Technology of Plasticity 1990;3:14838.
[12] Wang CT, Kinzel GL, Altan T. Process simulation and springback control in
plane strain sheet bending. SAE paper no. 930280. Warrendale (PA): Society
of Automotive Engineers; 1993.
[13] Hamouda A, Abu Khadra F, Hamadan M, Imhemed R, Mahdi E. Springback in
V-bending: A finite element approach. International Journal of Materials and
Product Technology 2004;21(1/2/3):12436.
[14] Gossard DC, Allison BT. Adaptive brakeforming. In: Proc. of 8th North American
manufacturing research conf., vol. 8. 1980. p. 2526.
[15] Stelson K, Gossard D. An adaptive pressbrake control using an elasticplastic
material model. Journal of Engineering for Industry 1982;104(4):38993.
[16] Stelson K. Real time identification of workpiece material characteristics from
measurements during brakeforming. Journal of Engineering for Industry 1983;
105:4553.
[17] Stelson K. An adaptive pressbrake control for strain hardening materials.
Journal of Engineering for Industry 1986;108:12732.
[18] Hosford W, Caddell R. Metal forming mechanics and metallurgy. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1993.
Jyhwen Wang is an associate professor in the Dept. of Engineering Technology and
Industrial Distribution at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in mechanical
engineering from Northwestern University. Prior to joining Texas A&M University,
he was a researcher and R&D manager at Weirton Steel Technology Center (Weirton,
WV). Dr. Wangs research interest is in the area of design and analysis of metal
forming processes.
 J. Wang et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes 10 (2008) 2127
Suhas Verma received his B.Eng. degree from Saurashtra University (Rajkot,
India) and M.Eng. degree from Texas A&M University, both in mechanical
engineering. He has been the recipient of the International Education Study Grant
from Texas A&M University. He is current an engineer at Baker Hughes Inc.
(Houston).
Richard Alexander is a professor of mechanical engineering and was the
department head of the Dept. of Engineering Technology and Industry Distribution
at Texas A&M University. He received his B.S. and M.S. from Texas A&M University
27
and his Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Arlington. Dr. Alexanders research
interest is in mechanical design and system dynamics.
Jenn-Terng Gau is an assistant professor in the mechanical engineering department
at Northern Illinois University. Prior to joining the faculty at Northern Illinois
University, he held engineer positions at Ford Motor Co. and HarleyDavidson
Motor Co. Dr. Gau graduated from the Ohio State University with Ph.D.
in mechanical engineering. His research interests include net-shape forming,
microforming, and machine design.