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

net/publication/338863821

A Review on Flexible Forming of Sheet Metal Parts

Conference Paper · December 2019

DOI: 10.1109/IEEM44572.2019.8978879

CITATION READS

1 294

5 authors, including:

Günther Schuh Georg Bergweiler

RWTH Aachen University RWTH Aachen University
977 PUBLICATIONS   5,757 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   183 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Falko Fiedler Philipp Bickendorf

RWTH Aachen University RWTH Aachen University
21 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Technology Know-how protection View project

Production efficiency in small series production (ProeK) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philipp Bickendorf on 28 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Review on Flexible Forming of Sheet Metal Parts
Günther Schuh1, Georg Bergweiler1, Falko Fiedler1, Philipp Bickendorf1, Can Colag1
1
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL), RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
(philipp.bickendorf@rwth-aachen.de)
Abstract - The automotive industry is facing intensified
challenges due to shortened product life cycles, increasing
individualization, an uncertain demand, and pressure to
innovate caused by e-mobility. Currently, there is no suitable
technology for the economic production of deep drawn parts
in low quantities. Due to tooling lead time and costs, deep
drawing is only economical in high quantities.
To ensure profitability along common annual quantities,
the literature shows various approaches, e.g. sheet metal
forming by AM tools. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to
summarize current approaches presented in the literature
and evaluate those using criteria, e.g. tooling costs,
sustainability, and product flexibility.
Keywords - Manufacturing, production technology,
sustainability, review, evaluation, flexibility, prototyping,
sheet metal forming, additive manufacturing, rapid tooling,
body shop
I. INTRODUCTION
In addition to challenges such as shortened product
life cycles, increasing individualization and pressure to
innovate, e-mobility brings its own challenges to the
automotive industry. The increased frequency of
disruptive innovations leads to uncertain future demand,
which impedes a successful investment plan for the
manufacturers [1] and [2]. In the body shop, these factors
are increasingly occurring due to high derivate-specific
investments. To be able to offer competitive prices with
ICE Vehicles, the BEV and HEV manufacturers must
produce cost-effective car body parts regardless of annual
production volume. Currently, there is no suitable
technology for the economic production in low quantities
of deep drawn parts. Deep drawing, the sheet metal
forming process of mass production, is only economical
from a certain number of units per year. Existing, low-
investment prototyping procedures are often not able to
meet functional requirements of large-scale production. In
addition, most of the procedures are using non-recyclable
tooling materials and are characterized by a high energy
consumption compared to deep drawing.
In order to ensure economic production along the
possible annual quantities, the scientific literature
proposes various approaches, such as sheet metal forming
by additively manufactured forming tools.
This paper includes the review of the most relevant
developments of research in this field. These technologies
are then evaluated with regard to various criteria e.g.
flexibility, sustainability, and investment cost. This
evaluation results in fields of action which will be
described in detail for one exemplary technology.
II. FORMING OF SHEET METAL
The production of sheet metal parts offers potential for
increasing the flexibility of operating equipment in car
body construction [3]. A large part of the body and outer
skin parts are formed by deep drawing [4]. In the process
of deep drawing, a sheet blank is formed into a hollow
body without any intentional change in sheet thickness. A
punch presses the sheet blank through a blank holder into
the die. Due to high machine and tool costs, this
technology is only economical for large annual quantities
and therefore represents a bottleneck with regard to
production volume flexibility [5]. In the development of a
new derivate, tooling costs mainly determine the costs for
the construction of prototype vehicles [6].
On the other hand, existing low-investment
technologies (e.g. high-speed CNC milling of soft
materials) that are suitable for the production of sheet
metal parts are often unable to meet the functional
requirements of mass production compared to deep
drawing [6]. In small series production, these are e.g.
requirements regarding tolerance or surface quality. In
prototype construction, in particular strength and crash
requirements play a primary role. The abandonment of
physical test vehicles to ensure crash behaviour and
driving dynamics is not foreseeable at present [7]. In
addition, the individualization of parts (e.g. the outer skin)
using (additive) rapid tooling plays a role in large series
production.
Modularized near-series prototype tools/multi-
component tools can be adapted with regard to a changed
geometry of the sheet metal part with reduced retooling
effort [8]. However, the initial investment and
development of an application-oriented modular system is
very expensive and the application is limited in particular
by the requirements of modularity.
A further possibility are tools made of alternative
materials for mold construction and model making, such
as the quickly millable Ureol or Bismuth with a very low
melting point. Tools made of aluminum or synthetic
resins can also represent an alternative to conventional
tools made of high-strength tool steel in specific
applications in prototype construction or in a small series
[9].
 Due to the good friction behavior of polymer materials
as well as the potentials with regard to a reduction of the
tooling lead time when using additively manufactured
tools, approaches of additive rapid tooling are also being
investigated [6, 10]. However, detailed investigations and
validations with regard to process stability, accuracy and
the potential for time and cost savings still need to be
carried out. First experiments have shown that additive
rapid tooling in sheet metal forming is an economical
approach for the development of sheet metal forming
tools and the production of functional tools for small
series production with considerable cost and time saving
potentials [6, 11].
Potential applications of additively manufactured
forming tools for deep drawing/embossing in prototype
construction or in a small series production using
additively manufactured forming tools are, e.g. holders,
flanges or medium-size adapter and reinforcing plates.
Additively produced tools are also suitable for the
insertion of beads or other geometries for
reinforcing/increasing the stiffness of the tool.
Because of their very good sliding and friction
behavior, the forming of alternative materials like
polymer is worth investigating in detail [10]. The increase
of different body designs in mixed construction requires
e.g. a closer examination of the forming capacity of high-
strength aluminum [12]. Furthermore, the exact influence
on the formed material is still unclear. E.g., it has to be
clarified whether the effect of conventional deep drawing
is achieved, in which the sheet is drawn along by the
punch, so that the sheet thickness of the part only changes
minimally. Another problem could be exceeding the yield
strength of the material during the forming process by the
plastic tool. The focus here is on tool design, e.g. load
peaks on the tool can be provided with an appropriate
oversize or supported by a reinforced/compacted
structure. In the following, eight prototyping technologies
for flexible forming of sheet metal parts are presented in
detail.
A. Non-additive approaches
Resin casting is a non-additive prototype tooling
process. First, a cavity Styrofoam pattern is designed and
applied with release agent. As in Fig. 1, the polymer resin,
mostly Polyurethane (PU) or Epoxy (EP), is casted into
the cavity [7]. Resin casted tools can be applied for the
forming of various sizes of sheet metal parts. [7]
demonstrated a prototype tooling process for medium and
large sized car body parts. By this demonstration, the PU
die was reinforced with a metal plate structure in order to
support the structure. [10] has shown, that casted polymer
tools can show even a better tribological behavior by
forming small and mid-size, zinc coated sheet metal parts
than conventional metal tools.
Arc spraying is a competing prototype tooling
technology to resin casting for the manufacturing of large
size and thick sheet metal parts [13]. In this process, the
master pattern of the tool form is sprayed with a low-
melting-point metal out of zinc or zinc-alloys. After
spraying the 1-2 mm thick metal coating, the metal
surface is supported by a backing material, mostly casted
resin [14]. The sprayed metal ensures a better distribution
of the forming forces and has a better friction behavior.
The reliability of the forming tools depends on the
supporting material, so that it is necessary to prevent the
delamination between the materials for a good
dimensional accuracy of the formed parts [14]. The
scientific literature about this topic is focused on
automating the spraying process with robots, in order to
reduce dust and radiation load on the workers and ensure
less surface roughness of the sprayed metal shell [13, 15].
Hydroforming is a rather mature technology to
produce body panels with a class A-surface in small series
production than a prototyping technology [16]. In this
process, a fluid replaces one of the two press tools. The
blank is formed between the tool and a rubber diaphragm
that is pressurized with castor oil [3]. The cycle times and
energy consumption rate of hydroforming are high, but
since it requires only one stiff tool half, it is a suitable
technology for the forming of exterior parts in small series
[4, 17]. [17] has developed an approach to reduce the
cycle times by increasing the reaction times of the
forming fluids. Aluminum body panels or complex
geometries, which are extremely difficult to form with
conventional stamping, are formable with hydroforming
[16]. A case study by [9] has shown, that for forming a
rear door panel, hydroforming is the most economical
process for annual production volumes below 50,000
parts.
Multi-point forming (MPF) is a flexible forming
technology that does not need a die. In the case of MPF, a
geometrically reconfigurable die tool is fabricated of two
matrices of pins whose lengths can be varied
independently in order to build the different tool shapes
[18]. The main problem by this process is that the profile
of the die is not continuous. Thus, the spring back effect
occurs more intensively. The spring back effect describes
the spring back of deep drawn and stretch-drawn parts
upon completion of sheet metal forming. Particularly, it
affects the dimensional accuracy of the finished part.
Recently, there has been two research approaches to
reduce the spring back effect. One is by usage of
compressible rubber punches by [18] and the other
approach is by usage of swinging punch heads [19].
Thereby, the not-fixed punch head swings due to forming
forces with the sheet metal in the forming direction and
creates a more continuous die profile. This reduces the
stair stepping effect. A simulative prediction and
prevention of the spring back effect by this process is also
a current research topic, since this effect reduces the
dimensional accuracy and leads to poor fit-up of the parts
during welding [18, 20]. This process is highly
sustainable, since only the punch heads need to be
replaced by abrasion. The manual readjustment of each
punch is highly time-consuming. Therefore, [21] presents
an automated individual height-adjustment of each punch.
This method is more cost-intensive but enables the
forming of different geometries in one production line.
Incremental sheet forming (ISF) is a sheet forming
process by using a CNC forming tool. The forming tool
follows the contour of the desired part and imposes a
localized plastic deformation [9]. There are various
options of ISF with different suitability regarding the part
quality or geometric shape: One-point ISF, two-point ISF,
hybrid processes like a combination of ISF and stretch
forming and temperature assisting ISF processes [9, 16,
22]. Unlike deep drawing, in ISF the material flow does
not occur from the whole flange zone, but only from the
local forming area. Therefore greater forming gradients
than approximately 60-65° lead to defects such as cracks
and wrinkles [22, 23]. Since most of the automotive parts
are designed for the deep drawing process, it is not easy to
complete exactly the same geometries by ISF. [24]
demonstrated a multistage process to reduce the defects
even by high forming gradients. [22] combined the ISF
technology with stretch forming and shortened the process
time since a support die shapes the convex form and only
concave surface parts are formed by ISF. [25] developed a
quick and sustainable device to combine MPF and ISF
technologies.
Resin casting [7]
LOM [27]
Arc spraying [14]
PBAM [6] Hydroforming [16]
MPF [18]
FFF [11] ISF [9]
Fig. 1. Process representation of the eight focused technologies
B. Additive approaches
In the process of laminated object manufacturing
(LOM), prefabricated films are joined together to form a
three-dimensional model, as in Fig.1. Because of the
limitation of the mechanical properties of the materials
used (LOM-paper, plastics or sheet metal), the usage of
this method was limited to the forming of large sized and
thin parts. The recent research is focused on the increase
of the durability and mechanical properties of sheet metal
forming tools. [26] investigated surface treatments such as
hardening or galvanic coating and increasing the adhesion
between the layers by gluing them together with a better
controlled and focused laser beam. To increase the
mechanical properties of the LOM-tools out of paper, [27]
have infiltrated the tools with epoxy resin. A disadvantage
of LOM is, that layers are thicker than other common
additive manufacturing technologies, which leads to an
increased stair stepping effect and a bad surface quality of
the parts. Therefore, the usability of LOM-Tools for outer
skin parts is limited. [28] has eliminated the stair stepping
effect by using profiled edge laminations and gluing the
layers with the method of [26]. This technology however
is limited to producing 25 parts with one forming tool
[26].
In the powder-based additive manufacturing
(PBAM) process, granules in powder form are melted by
a focused/selective application of energy so that they
solidify in layers. The best known methods are selective
laser melting (SLM) and sintering (SLS). Only in the case
of SLM, the metal granulate is completely melted. [6]
produced a series of small sized sheet metal parts (1.5 or 2
mm) out of aluminum formed by a forming tool out of
RapidSteel™ 2.0 manufactured by SLS. The stamping
operation showed good results in terms of dimensional
accuracy. However, the tool did not meet the material
specifications of mass production. Further test series have
shown that SLS is only suitable for the production of
complex geometries, near-contour cooling channels or
lubricant channels due to very high material and process
costs [29, 30]. Related applications are e.g. hard facing of
tools for stamping of high strength steel sheet,
remanufacturing of large-sized stamping tools with minor
changes, and restoration of stamping tools in order to
increase the life cycle [12].
In the process of fused filament fabrication (FFF), a
FFF tool deposits a filament of a material, such as plastic,
wax, or metal, on top or alongside the same material,
making a joint by heat or adhesion. Some of the most
popular polymer materials are Polylactide (PLA) and
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS). Other common
materials with different material properties, melting
points, and potentials to recycle are e.g. Polycarbonate
(PC), Nylon, or Polycaprolactone (PCL). With a suitable
selection of high performance filaments, the stiffness and
strength of a tool manufactured with FFF is sufficient for
deep drawing and embossing of thin sheets [11, 27]. [11] according to the literature presented.
demonstrated the embossing of a prototype car part, The possible annual quantities produced by PBAM-
tailgate lock reinforcement, in small series of 101 parts in tools strongly depends on the material used (metal or
two materials (DC04, S355MC) by means of FFF tools. polymer). The metallic tools have a sufficiently long
The optical measurement of the parts and the tool after product life for small series but due to friction and wear,
every tenth embossing showed good dimensional the tools are not suitable for annual quantities > 1,000 [6].
accuracy over the entire quantity range for parts made of The tooling and machine costs are high due to the high
DC04. The limits of the material properties of the investment costs of laser systems and the powder
polycarbonate tool material used were shown in parts materials [33]. By this method, the tools could directly be
made of S355MC. FFF tools made of polycarbonate are created from the CAD data and not an intermediate step is
dimensionally stable up to a quantity of 50 parts made of required, so the lead times are short. The dimensional
high-strength steel, such as S355MC [11]. In this process, accuracy of the parts produced by PBAM-Tools is
other factors must also be taken into account when decreased by two factors. One is the low dimensional
designing the tool, such as the spring back effect of accuracy of the big sized tools, which could be caused by
formed parts, the setting behavior of the tool layers and warpage [34]. The second factor is the process-related bad
the good friction behavior of polymers. In various surface quality of the parts which is caused by a rough
applications, [32] were able to show that both tooling lead tool surface [6]. The tools are stiff, so the layers are not
time and production costs of FFF tools are considerably compressed as much as by other processes due to forming
lower (by a factor of 1.5 to 10) than for near-series milled forces, which affects the dimensional accuracy positively.
tool. Therefore, the overall dimensional accuracy of the tools is
valued neutrally. The warpage impedes the production of
III. EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION bigger sized tools, so the product flexibility is low. The
energy consumption and expensive, partly recyclable
Within this chapter, a brief evaluation of the eight powder materials are leading to a negative rating for the
approaches regarding seven different criteria is listed and criterion sustainability [35].
explained. TABLE I
The annual quantity criterion is a qualitative Evaluation of non-additive tooling technologies
assessment of the suitability of annual quantity with a Method Resin Arc Hydro- MPF ISF
Criteria casting spraying forming
high level of profitability. The tooling cost is the total Annual 1- 1-100 1,000- 1-100 1-10
amount of the material and process costs during the quantity 10,000 100,000
production [6, 11]. The machine costs are analyzed as a Tooling costs - + -- ++ ++
separate criterion, since the cost differences, flexibility Machine costs ++ o -- + +
Lead time ++ + o ++ ++
and possible frequency of use of every machine is
Dimensional ++ o ++ - -
different. The lead time comprises the total amount of accuracy
construction/programming time (e.g. for ISF), Product o + ++ - -
manufacturing and postprocessing of the tools and formed flexibility
Sustainability o - - + +
parts [6, 11]. Dimensional accuracy describes the
conformance of the formed parts with the CAD TABLE II
Evaluation of additive tooling technologies
dimensions and tolerances given [6, 11]. Product Method LOM PBAM FFF
flexibility refers to the suitability of the process regarding Criteria
different sheet metal parts in terms of the thickness and Annual 1-100 100-1,000 1-100
quantity
size and low-cost-production of variable annual Tooling costs + - +
quantities. Sustainability comprises the assessment of the Machine costs - - +
aspects energy consumption rate and environmental Lead time ++ + +
impact due to CO² emission or the use of non-recyclable Dimensional o o +
accuracy
materials. The selection of these seven key figures is Product ++ - -
based on current trends. Machine costs, product flexibility
flexibility, annual quantity and sustainability are Sustainability - -- +
especially important regarding e-mobility, technology
diversification and product individualization. IV. CONCLUSION
In the following, the categorization of the criteria
mentioned will be justified by detailing the classification Based on the scientific literature, this paper identifies
of the PBAM-approach. This logic was carried out and analyses five non-additive and three additive
analogously for each of the technologies described. The technologies for the production of sheet metal parts from
classification is made on a scale from poor suitability (--) sheet metal in prototype construction. These technologies
to a neutral evaluation (o) to good suitability (++) are then assessed against seven criteria, which include
 economical, ecological and production indicators. From
this evaluation, it is possible, e.g., to deduce the suitability
of the technology for certain applications. A deeper
economic or technological detailing of an individual
technology was not possible due to the limited scope. As
an example, the FFF process is suitable for the production
of polymer tools for deep drawing and embossing of sheet
metal parts in small quantities [11]. This suitability as
well as the application boundaries must be examined in
more detail by means of test series.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Kampker, „Electric car manufacturing“ (in German),
Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2014, pp. 9–11.
[2] McKinsey & Company, “Automotive perspectives towards
2030”, 2016.
[3] L. Lamminen, B. Wadman, R. Küttner, T. Svinning
“ProSheet - Prototyping and low volume production of
sheet metal components”, in Research report by Nordic
Industrial Fund, 2003.
[4] A. Birkert, S. Haage, M. Straub, “Forming production of
complex body parts“ (in German), Springer Verlag, 2013.
[5] H. Waltl, W. Vette, B. Griesbach, “Toolmaking as pioneer
for quality speed and cost reduction for the development
and production of new car body concepts: trends and
advances in sheet metal forming”, in IDDRG 2006, Porto,
2007, pp. 1-14.
[6] C. M. Cheah, C. K. Chua, C. W. Lee, S. T. Lim, K. H. Eu,
L. T. Lin, “Rapid sheet metal manufacturing”, in The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 2002, pp. 510-515.
[7] I. Durgun, A. Sakin, E. Aybaraz, “Prototype Tooling of
Sheet Metal Components of Car Body,” in 7th International
Conference and Exhibition on Design and Production of
Machines and Dies/Molds, Antalya, 2013, pp. 249–254.
[8] O. Kerbrat, P.Mognol, J. Hascoet, “Manufacturability
analysis to combine additive and subtractive processes,” in
Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2010, pp. 63–72.
[9] A. Tekkaya, T. Altan, “Sheet Metal Forming”, ASM
International, 2012, p. 176.
[10] C. Frank, “Polymers as tooling material for deep drawing of
sheet metal” (in German), PhD thesis, Leibniz University
Hannover, Germany, 1999.
[11] I. Durgun, “Sheet Metal Forming using FDM Rapid
Prototype Tool”, in Rapid Prototyping Journal, pp. 412-
422, 2015.
[12] J. M. Tisza, Z. Lukács, “High Strength Aluminum alloys
in car manufacturing”, in International Deep Drawing
Research Group 37th Annual Conference, Waterloo, 2018.
[13] He, B. Lu, Y. Wang, J. Hong, Y, Tang, “An Automated Arc
Spraying Tooling System for Rapid Die-Making of Large-
Sized Automobile Body Panels”, in Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering in China, 2006, pp. 209-214.
[14] H. Wu, B. Lu, C. Guo, R. Wei, “Structural Analysis on the
Arc Spraying Rapid Tooling for Sheet Metal Forming”, in
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 2015, pp. 2277-2287.
[15] M. Hua, C. C. Lau, I. Hui, J, Li, “Limit Analysis on Surface
Roughness and Dimensional Accuracy of Spray Metallic
crust for Rapid Tooling Production by Metal arc Spraying
Process”, in The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 2014, pp. 720-731.
View publication stats
[16] T. Maki, J. Cheng, “Sheet Hydroforming and Other New
Potential Forming Technologies”, in International Deep
Drawing Research Group Conference, Waterloo, 2018.
[17] M. Hermes, A. Keskin, C. Berlinger, “New Device and
Technology for High Speed Hydroforming” in MATEC
Web Conference, 2018.
[18] A. Elghawail, “Flexible Forming of 3-D Metal Panels”,
PhD thesis, University of Birmingham 2018.
[19] J. Xing, Y. Cheng “The Effect of Swinging Ball Heads
With Different Arrangements in Multi-Point Stretch-
Forming Process”, in MDPI Basel, 2018.
[20] M. Abebe, J. Yoon, B. Kang “Radial Basis Functional
Model of Multi-Point Dieless Forming Process for Spring
back Reduction and Compensation”, in Metals-Open
Access Metallurgy Journal, 2017.
[21] T. Trzepiecinski “Advances in sheet metal forming
technologies”, Rzeszow University of Technology, 2012.
[22] B. Taleb-Araghi “Incremental Sheet Forming and its
Combination with Stretch Forming” (in German), PhD
thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 2011.
[23] A. Governale, A. Lo Franco, A. Fratini, F. Micari
“Incremental Forming Process for the Accomplishment of
Automotive Details”, in Key Engineering Materials, vol.
344, pp. 559-566, 2007.
[24] G. Hirt, J. Ames, “A new forming Strategy to Realize Parts
Designed for Deep Drawing by Incremental CNC Sheet
Forming”, in Steel Research, vol. 76, pp. 160-166, 2005.
[25] S. Boudhaouia, M. Gahbiche, Y. Ayed, E. Giraud,
“Experimental and numerical study of a new hybrid
process: multi-point incremental forming”, in International
Journal of Metal Forming, vol. 11, pp. 815-827, 2018.
[26] A. Techel, “MELATO-Metal Laminated Tooling”,
Fraunhofer IWS, Dresden, 2005.
[27] T. Schell, “Basic investigations of a new Rapid Tooling
technique for sheet metal forming“ (in German), PhD
thesis, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, 2005.
[28] D. Walczyk, D. Hardt “Rapid Tooling for Sheet Metal
Forming”, in Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, vol. 120, pp. 746, 1998.
[29] A. Huskic, J. Giedenbacher, U. Pschebezin “Rapid Tooling
for Forming tools” (in German), in RTejournal, 2012.
[30] R. Leal, F. Barreiros, L. Alves “Additive Manufacturing
Tooling for the Automotive Industry”, in The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 2, pp.
1671-1676, 2017.
[31] D. Ahn, “Applications of Laser Assisted Metal Rapid
Tooling Process to Manufacture of Molding & Forming
Tools - State of the Art”, in The International Journal of
Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, vol. 12, pp.
925-938, 2011.
[32] G. Bergweiler, F. Fiedler, A. Kampker, K. Lichtenthäler
“Additively manufactured forming tools in prototype
construction” (in German) in Umformtechnik Blech Rohre
Profile, 2019.
[33] R. Sreenivasan, A. Goel, D. Bourell “Sustainability issues
in laser-based additive manufacturing” in Physics Procedia,
pp. 81-90, 2010.
[34] T. Siebel “Materials approved by OEMs are the
prerequisite“ (in German), in Lightweight Design, pp. 48-
51, 2018.
[35] F. Bourhis, O. Kerbrat, J. Hascoet, P. Mongol,
“Sustainability manufacturing: evaluation and modeling of
environmental impacts in additive manufacturing”, in
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, pp. 1-12, 2013.