Cirp Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

G Model
CIRPJ 601 No. of Pages 14
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology xxx (2019) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cirpj
Characterization of residual stresses in an asymmetrical shape

produced through incremental forming
H. Rashida , G. Hussaina,* , K. Rehmana , S. Khana , Mohammed Alkahtanib,c ,
Mustufa Haider Abidic
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences & Technology, Pakistan
b
Industrial Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia
c
Raytheon Chair for Systems Engineering (RCSE), Advanced Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: The nature and magnitude of residual stresses affect the performance and service life of the formed
Available online xxx components. The state of residual stresses in the axisymmetric shapes have been characterized in Single
Point Incremental Sheet Forming (SPIF). However, any study detailing thorough distribution of residual
stresses on an asymmetrical shape has not been reported. In the present work, a detailed analysis
Keywords: pertaining to the distribution of residual stresses on an asymmetrical pyramid and stress-parameters
Incremental forming
relationship (s) are reported. The maximum stresses were induced in the smaller face (or side) of the
Hole drill test
pyramid followed by the region(s) bordering the edges/corners of the larger face, while the minimum
Residual stress
Taguchi analysis
stresses were induced at the bottom of the pyramid. The maximum compressive stresses ranged from
11 MPa to 292 MPa, and the maximum tensile stresses ranged from +6 MPa to +341 MPa. The cause-
effect analysis reveals that the diameter and wall angle were the most influential process parameters.
Further, as measured on the face center, the stresses varied from +1050 MPa (max tensile) to 650 MPa
(max compressive). The results will prove helpful for the process and product design.
© 2020 CIRP.
Introduction Residual stresses and their nature are believed to have a

substantial impact on the performance and life of a produced
Some countries focus on the manufacture of relatively simple component. In general, compressive residual stresses are beneficial
products with large productions while others prioritize value as they promote fatigue strength and fatigue life. They also retard
addition over the quantity of their supplies. Various motivations crack propagation and increase resistance to environmentally
such as product customization, reduction in cost, minimization of assisted cracking. Residual stresses of tensile nature are considered
lead time, shortening of life cycle, and sustainable manufacturing undesirable as they pose detrimental effects to fatigue resistance
have been observed. and increase crack propagation. However, the ultimate effect of
Single-point incremental forming (SPIF) has allowed the residual stresses depends on their interaction with the type of
economical production of small and medium batches with a short applied load. A tensile load should be counteracted by inducing
turnaround time from design to manufacture [1]. This process has compressive residual stresses in the component/material and vice
attracted the production of customized parts in the biomedical versa. In sheet metal forming, residual stresses affect the post-
sector and small batches for the automotive and aircraft industry forming mechanical properties as well as the dimensional accuracy
[2,3]. This process is now well-known, and its latest state of the art of the produced part [6].
has been reviewed in various recognized journals [4,5]. In SPIF, residual stresses are even more distinctive due to the
absence of back support during forming [7]. Herghelegiu et al. [8]
reported the effects of process parameters on residual stresses.
They produced the double frustums of a pyramid and cone using
* Corresponding author at: GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences & Technology, Al1050 aluminum as the test material. They found that the residual
23460, Pakistan. stresses were nonuniformly distributed through the thickness of
E-mail addresses: harris_rashid123@hotmail.com (H. Rashid),
the sheet. The employment of a larger tool and a greater step size
gh_ghumman@hotmail.com (G. Hussain), khalid.rehman@giki.edu.pk
(K. Rehman), engrshaukatkhan2929@yahoo.com (S. Khan), induced stresses of tensile character. The increase in the feed rate
moalkahtani@ksu.edu.sa (M. Alkahtani), mabidi@ksu.edu.sa (M.H. Abidi). caused a change in stress from tension to compression. The
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.07.010
1755-5817/© 2020 CIRP.
Please cite this article in press as: H. Rashid, et al., Characterization of residual stresses in an asymmetrical shape produced through
incremental forming, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.07.010
G Model
2 H. Rashid et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology xxx (2019) xxx–xxx
increase in the spindle rotation reduced the stresses. The pyramid in the center of a component (i.e., center of flat surface or face with
frustum experienced greater stresses than the conical frustum. low stiffness).
In another work, Costantino et al. [6] qualitatively associated Frustum of a pyramid was chosen as a test geometry because it
the effect of residual stresses with the accuracy of the parts consists of corners and flat surfaces, which have varying stiffnesses
processed by the SPIF process. The DC01 carbon steel having a and thus endure different residual stresses, and stress-parameter
sheet thickness of 0.8 mm was fabricated into a pyramid with a relationship was investigated to deepen the understanding of
maximum wall angle of 80 . They reported that a larger tool and process mechanics. Commercial aluminum (1050) was employed
step size resulted in reduced part accuracy because the residual because it possesses good forming characteristics, outstanding
stresses of tensile nature increased. Further, a greater feed rate corrosion resistance, and high thermal and electrical conductivity.
improved the accuracy because of an increase in compressive In addition, it has numerous commercial applications in the
residual stresses. transportation industry (such as car bodies and aircraft frames) in
Jeswiet et al. [7] performed the finite element modeling of a line solar panels, solar geezers, and heat sinks. Another reason for
test to study the effect of tool size and vertical feed (i.e., step size) selecting this material is that it is an economical and easily
on residual stresses and spring back. They reported that deforma- available material. Even though this material is known to suffer
tion imposed by the tool induced tensile stresses in the upper from lower forming stresses in comparison to steel and titanium, it
layers and compressive stresses in the lower layers thereby causing can be used to characterize residual stresses on a pyramid shape.
bending moment and hence a negative spring back in the sheet. Initially, stress distribution on the pyramid was examined on 10
Further, the larger tool and higher vertical feed led to an increase in various locations to provide an in-depth view of stress distribution.
the tensile stresses, especially in the upper layers. This was followed by an investigation regarding the influence of
Siller et al. [9] examined the distribution of residual stresses on various process parameters on stresses at a chosen location. For
a cone of varying wall angle fabricated from Al 6061 sheet. They this purpose, the Taguchi approach was used to identify the
found that the stress profile was nonlinear that induced bending influential parameters and analyze the stress-parameter relation-
effects in the sheet. Further, magnitude of the bending moment ship.
was close to the yield stress of the sheet.
Hussain et al. [10] investigated the effect of parameters on Experimental methodology
through-thickness residual stresses in a Cu/Steel/Cu clad sheet
metal. They found that the stresses were completely compressive Test geometry and forming setup
throughout the thickness of the sheet, despite the value decreasing
from the tool/sheet inner surface to the outer surface. The Frustums of the pyramid with wall angles 20 , 40 and 60 were
magnitude of stresses increased with an increase in the wall designed on Creo Parametric1 , keeping the thickness of the sheet
angle and feed rate. The effects of step size and diameter were equal to 1 mm. The experimental setup employed for the current
interactive. The middle diameter value (13 mm) induced lower study consisted of TRIAC – FANUC ATC CAM 2 CNC milling machine,
stresses while the middle step size value (0.6 mm) induced greater and a clamping rig as shown in Fig. 1(a, b). Multiple sheets of
stresses. Hussain and Ghamdi [11] showed that the gradient of aluminum (1050) were cut into blanks with a size of 175 mm
residual stress forms a direct relation with the post-forming tensile 100 mm 1 mm. These sheets were then annealed according to
strength. Wei and Hussain [12] associated the residual stresses ASTM standard B479-06 to relieve stresses already present due to
with the microstructure and reported that the value of stresses sheet rolling [2]. The blank was then clamped onto a rig.
increases with decreasing post-forming grain size, thereby leading The tool path (Z-level discrete) was generated in the Pro-E CAM
to a corresponding increase in the post-forming yield and tensile package with a step size of 0.1 mm. Three forming tools for the SPIF
strengths of the sheet. process were made from the high-speed steel with a hardness of
On the other hand, the distribution of residual stresses on 60–65 HRC. The head of each tool was machined to form a
asymmetrical components needs to be thoroughly investigated. hemisphere. While forming, the tool was given an anticlockwise
The structure of such a component (say frustum of a pyramid) rotation, and the sheet was lubricated with Castrol IloformTDN 81
consists of flat surfaces and corners. The corners have greater having excellent boundary-lubricating properties. Fig. 2 shows
structural stiffness than the flat surfaces [13]. This stiffness some representative parts produced in the present study.
discrepancy likely causes differences in the elastic deformations/
recovery of different regions of the component, thereby affecting Testing scheme
the distribution and values of the resulting residual stresses.
Although previous studies have investigated residual stresses in As mentioned earlier, the scope of work has two-fold
the asymmetrical shapes, these primarily focused on the stresses objectives: i) Study stress distribution across the entire pyramid
Fig. 1. (a) Experimental setup for SPIF (b) Clamping system for Al Sheet.
G Model
H. Rashid et al. / CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 3
Table 2
Experimental plan.
Sr# Rotation (rpm) Feed rate Wall angle Tool diameter

(mm/min) ( ) (mm)
Test 1 0 1000 20 6
Test 2 0 3000 60 22
Test 3 3000 1000 60 14
Test 4 3000 2000 20 22
Test 5 0 2000 40 14
Test 6 1500 3000 20 14
Test 7 1500 2000 60 6
Test 8 1500 1000 40 22
Test 9 3000 3000 40 6
Measurement of residual stresses
The experimental setup for the hole drill test is shown in Fig. 3.
To prevent vibrations induced by the drilling process, a wooden
frame was designed to serve as a solid base. Another frame was
built with three legs and a base made of fiber glass to allow
movement in the vertical plane, helping in the adjustment of the
height of the drill set up. Spirit levels and dial gauges were used to
regulate the perpendicularity. The drill bit was targeted at the
Fig. 2. Representative parts made through SPIF. center of the strain gauge rosette using X–Y adjustments, as
indicated in Fig. 3. The drilling began from the outer surface to the
geometry, ii) Investigate the stress-parameter relationship consid- inner surface (i.e. initiated from the opposite side of the tool/sheet
ering one specific location. interface).
For the first objective, 10 strain rosettes were attached to The integral method [16] was employed to evaluate the stresses
different locations on a formed pyramid, which is presented in after drilling through the center of the hole in the rosette. Strains
detail in Section 3.2. For the second objective, the DoE approach were recorded by the P3 indicator in three directions, as shown in
was adopted and implemented using the Design-Expert1 Software Fig. 4 (a). As mentioned earlier, S1 is the normal stress
Version 10. Tool diameter (d), spindle speed (v), feed rate (f), and perpendicular to the forming direction, S3 is the normal stress
wall angle (u) were selected as candidate process parameters. The parallel to the forming direction, and T13 is the maximum shear
Taguchi method was used to design the test plan and analyze the stress at 45 to S1. The drilling was performed following the ASTM
results [14]. L9 orthogonal array i.e., 4 factors with 3 levels was E-837-13a standard. A tungsten carbide drill bit of 1.6 mm
opted, as shown in Table 1. Taguchi design is regarded as “Robust diameter was used for drilling. Fig. 4 shows the entire configura-
design” because the analysis based on this design is rarely affected tion of rosettes attached to one of the formed parts with
by noise or outliers [15] Thus, this design eliminates the need for parameters of Test 7 (Table 2), analyzed further in
replicates, thereby reducing the required number of runs. Section “Distribution of residual stresses on parts formed by ISF”.
However, for more accuracy, some tests were conducted twice,
and the standard deviation in stress was observed within 1 sd, Results and discussion
thereby showing reasonable accuracy of the analysis.
The levels of feed rate and spindle speed were selected based on Firstly, the through-thickness distribution of the residual
the specifications of the CNC machine. The high level of tool stresses in the unformed sheet is presented and discussed. In
diameter was set to 22 mm as any further rise in the diameter the next step, the distribution of residual stresses across the
increases the deformation force, thus surpassing the machine
limit. The wall angle was varied from 20 to 60 because below 20 ,
it induces very low forming stresses while above 60 , it can lead to
sheet fracture [1]. The complete test plan is shown in Table 2.
Responses derived from the tests include the maximum values
of in-plane tensile stresses (MPa) in the two perpendicular
directions (S1-max (T) and S3-max (T)) and in-plane compressive
stresses (MPa) in the two perpendicular directions (S1-max (C) and
S3-max (C)). These quantities were obtained by the hole drill method,
which is explained in Section 2.3.
Table 1
List of factors and their levels.
Factors Rotation/v Feed rate/f Wall angle/u Tool diameter/d

(rpm) (mm/min) ( ) (mm)
Levels 0 1000 20 6
1500 2000 40 14
3000 3000 60 22
Fig. 3. Hole drill setup.
G Model
Fig. 4. Sample using parameters of Test 7 with installed stain gauges (a) front view (b) back view and (c) side view.
pyramid geometry is analyzed. Finally, the parameter-stress stress. Fig. 5 presents the through-thickness profile of in-plane
correlation is analyzed after identifying influential process stresses in the two directions. At the superficial layers, i.e. at the
parameters. beginning of drilling, it can be seen that the stresses are tensile.
As the drilling proceeds, stresses in the annealed sheet increase
Distribution of residual stresses on unformed samples steadily for the initial four increments, staying in the tensile region.
Nature of stress inverses from tensile to compressive at the mid-
The supplied sheets were annealed in a controlled environment thickness of the sheet. In the deeper layers, as drilling goes past the
in one setting, thereby minimizing possible effects of nonuniform mid-thickness, compressive stresses dominate, and the magnitude
annealing on residual stresses. Moreover, three tests were performed of the stresses rises with the highest compressive stress in both
on the sheet with only a minor (negligible) variation in the residual directions being recorded at a thickness of 0.75 mm.
G Model
Fig. 5. Stress profiles of annealed sheet.
Fig. 6. Quantified positions of the rosettes from the center in mm.
Distribution of residual stresses on parts formed by SPIF Table 3

Quantified positions of the rosettes from the center in mm.
To analyze the stress distribution across the pyramid geometry, Rosettes Location (mm)
10 rosettes were attached at different positions, as depicted in
X-Axis Y-Axis
Fig. 6 (physical form depicted in Fig. 4). The rosette position with
respect to the face center is presented in Table 3. The pyramid was 1 (front view) 51 6
2 (front view) 46 6.5
formed by employing the parameters listed in Test 7 in Table 2.
3 (front view) 25 6
For comparison, Rosette 5 and 10 were affixed at the same 4 (front view) 11 6.5
position on opposite walls. Measurements were taken through the 5 (Side A), 10 (Side B) (front view) 0 0
thickness of the frustum with 5 sample points each for all rosettes. 6 (front view) 21 6
As shown in Fig. 7, the stress profile shows a similar trend in both 7 (top view) 0 0
8 (top view) 0 10
directions (1) and (3). The mean deviation, as collected from the
entire profile, was noted to be 6 MPa (at maximum in S1 and S3).
Stresses are seen to be nonuniform in nature. Mostly, tensile Rosettes 1, 3, and 6 were attached in one line. Rosette 1 was
stresses prevail through the thickness of both rosettes. The nature damaged during experimentation; therefore, it is not included in the
of the stress changes from tensile to compressive for both strain graphs. Rosettes 3 and 6 provide a good comparison (Fig. 8) as the
gauges close to the midpoint of sheet thickness. There is minor maximum tensile stress, and the minimum compressive stress in both
difference in the magnitude of stresses in the two locations (5 and directions are similar. The nature of the stress changed at around the
10), which can be attributed to inhomogeneities in the sheet mid-thickness for both rosettes, indicating the mid-thickness plane
material [17]. acting as a neutral plane.
G Model
Fig. 7. Residual Stress in Rosette 5 and 10.
Fig. 8. Residual Stress in Rosette 3 and 6.
Fig. 9. Residual stress in Rosette 7 and 8.
Rosettes 7 and 8 were attached at the top surface of the Variation in stress distribution due to change in process parameters
component (Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 9, the residual stresses at
these locations have the least magnitude since material remains To analyze the effects of process parameters on residual
undeformed here. The stress profile shows that stresses in Rosette stresses, the center of the larger face of the pyramid was chosen as
7 are higher than those in Rosette 8. This is because of the presence a testing position (i.e. equivalent to the position of R5 shown in
of stiffened edge boundary near Rosette 7. Fig. 10 compares the
maximum values of tensile and compressive stresses (S1-max and
S3-max) recorded from various rosettes. On the larger face, the edge-
bordering rosettes (say R2, R3, R4, R6) generally exhibit greater
stresses than the center rosette (i.e., R5). Rosette 9, which is
attached to a smaller side or face, shows the highest stress, most
likely due to having greater stiffness. Rosette 7 and Rosette 8 show
comparatively smaller stresses as compared to other rosettes.
Rosette R10 and Rosette 10 being symmetric show comparable
results. This is worth pointing out that R2 shows slightly higher
tensile stress than R4. This difference appears because R2 is
between the two edges (i.e., near the corner) as opposed to only
one edge in R4; as a result, the vicinity of R2 experiences more
tension due to biaxial stretching. Fig. 10. Comparison of maximum stresses across various locations of the pyramid.
G Model
Fig. 11. Distribution of residual stresses in 9 tests: (a) Direction 1 and, (b) Direction 3.
Fig. 6). Drilling was initiated from the opposite side of the tool/
sheet contact surface. The through-thickness in-plane stress
profiles of 9 tests are presented in Fig. 11. Most of the stress
profiles dominantly show tensile character at the outer layers i.e.
up to a thickness of 0.1 mm. The stress value ranges within
spectrum of +100 MPa to 100 MPa for thickness less than 0.5 mm.
As the thickness increases, the stress value increases considerably.
Another observation is that the nature of the stress changes at
approximately the mid-level thickness (0.55 mm) in most of the
tests. Further, the stress value is generally higher toward the tool/
sheet contact side (i.e., when the thickness exceeds 0.5 mm), which
might be attributed to the tool-contact effect, and agrees with the
results by Malhotra et al. [18]. Compared with the unformed sheet,
the stresses in deformed sheets are greater.
Parameter-stress correlation
The analysis regarding the effect of process parameters was

performed using the Design-Expert software. The analysis was
conducted on the maximum values of tensile and compressive
stresses, i.e., (S1-max (T), S3-max (T), S1-max (C), and S3-max (C)). These
values were obtained from stress profiles shown in Fig. 11. The
cause-effect analysis of these quantities is presented in the
following subsections; 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4 and 3.4.5.
Fig. 12. Half normal plot for S1-max (T).
G Model
Fig. 13. Main-effects plot for S1-max (T).
Maximum tensile stress (S1-max (T)) the tensile stress S3-max (T) thereby describing how tensile stresses
From each stress profile, the maximum tensile stress in the in the direction of tool movement (longitudinal direction) vary
transverse direction is identified as one of the responses for each of with a variation in the considered parameters. The Tensile Stress
the 9 tests and the Taguchi analysis is performed. decreases as Tool Rotation increases probably reasoning to a
Half-normal plot shown in Fig. 12 indicates the most important corresponding increase in friction and shear [4]. The highest value
factors in terms of their effect on S1-max(T). The wall angle and tool of tensile stress is achieved at a wall angle of 40 , consistent with
diameter appear as the two important factors. the result of S1-max (T) discussed earlier. The tensile stress is the
Fig. 13 is the main effects plot and shows that the tensile stress lowest for 6 mm tool, increases clearly at a tool diameter of 14 mm.
remains unchanged for wall angles of 20 and 60 , however, But it decreases again when the tool diameter is further increased
comparatively rises in 40 frustums thereby showing that bending to 22 mm, which is consistent with the results of S1-max (T).
moment resulted from 40 increased tensile stresses. Stresses can Combined effect of feed rate and rotation presented in Fig. 17
also be noticed to increase with the use of a larger tool diameter, with endorses the earlier finding and proposes that the highest value of
the highest stress level recorded for the 14-mm tool diameter. S3-max (T) is achieved using a tool of 14 mm diameter and spindle
However, with a further increase in tool diameter (from 14 mm to rotation of 0 rpm. Also, to obtain minimum tensile stress, tool
22 mm), the stress value decreases slightly. The inducement of rotation should be high while the diameter should be minimized.
greater tensile stresses upon using a larger diameter can be reasoned Therefore, it is advisable to not use a tool of diameter 14 mm as it
to a fact that the size of the deformation zone increases thereby induces more tensile stresses.
turning the local character of incremental forming into global [5].
Two-factor Interaction shown in Fig. 14 presents the combined Maximum compressive stress (S1-max (C))
effect of wall angle and tool diameter on the tensile stress. The The third response analyzed was the compressive stresses in
resulting pattern is not generic; however, it can be deduced that the transverse direction. These stresses tend to be beneficial for the
the least tensile stress can be achieved using the smallest tool service life of the specimen as they suppress the cracks especially
diameter (6 mm). when a tensile load is applied.
The half-normal plot, as shown in Fig. 18, indicates the wall
Maximum tensile stress (S3-max (T)) angle and tool diameter as the most impactful parameters on these
The half-normal plot presented in Fig. 15 indicates that the tool stresses.
diameter, rotation, and wall angle are the most influencing Fig. 19 presents the main effects plot. The maximum value of
parameters for S3-max (T). Fig. 16 shows the main effects plot for compressive stresses decreases with increasing wall angle because
stretching increases with the wall angle [5], whereas an opposite
trend is observed with increasing tool diameter. Fig. 20 depicts that
Fig. 14. Two-Factor Interaction for S1-max (T). Fig. 15. Half normal plot for S3-max (T).
G Model
Fig. 16. Main effects plot for S3-max (T).
the maximum magnitude of the compressive stress is obtained 2000 mm/min because the frictional effects increase. However, a
when the process is performed using a tool diameter of 14 mm (or further increase in the feed rate causes a decrease in shear stresses
above) and wall angle of 20 . seemingly due to increased heating [4,5].
Initially, the increases in tool diameter increase the shear stress,
Maximum compressive stress (S3-max (C)) but later a decrease from 14 mm to 20 mm can be noticed due to
According to the half-normal plot (plot not shown to avoid increased heating with increased deformation zone. Fig. 24, which
redundancy), the wall angle and tool diameter were detected as the are interaction plots, proposes that one should employ a feed rate
main influential parameters. of 3000 mm/min and tool diameter of 14 mm or above to minimize
As shown in Fig. 21, the value of S3-max (C) increases with the shear stresses.
decreasing wall angle and with increasing tool diameter, similar as
was observed for S1-max (C). Therefore, it is imperative to select the Conclusion
tool with at least 14 mm diameter to induce higher compressive
residual stresses at a given wall angle. In this article, an aluminum sheet was formed into an
asymmetrical pyramid shape, and the state of the in-plane residual
Maximum shear stress (T13-max) stresses was characterized over the entire surface using the hole
As noticeable from the half-normal plot (Fig. 22), the tool drill method. Moreover, the effect of process parameters was
diameter, wall angle, and feed rate are the main parameters analyzed using the Taguchi analysis. The following important
affecting the values of maximum shear stress. findings can be drawn from this study:
Fig. 23 presents the main effects plots. The shear stress
increases with increasing wall angle because strain the induced on Regarding the distribution of residual stresses on the pyramid
the sheet correspondingly increases [4]. Regarding the effect of shape, the stresses varied from location to location. The largest
feed rate, the shear stress increases with a feed rate up to magnitude of stress was recorded on the smaller face of the
G Model
Fig. 17. Two factor interaction for S3-max (T).
pyramid due to the high stiffness at the locality. Also, the corner Shear stresses have a direct relationship with the wall angle. The
area showed greater stresses than the central areas of the face. highest shear stress was recorded for specimens produced with
The maximum value of the compressive stress ranged from the lowest feed rate and the highest wall angle.
11 MPa to 292 MPa, and the maximum tensile stress ranged
from +6 MPa to +341 MPa across the pyramid geometry. Upon
testing various formed shapes, it was noticed that the through-
thickness stress distributions were nonuniform for both
compressive and tensile stresses; however, the tool/sheet
contact side generally showed compressive character.
The Taguchi analysis was carried out on the maximum values of
residual stresses in tension and compression for in-plane
perpendicular directions. Tensile stresses showed a strong
dependence on wall angle and tool diameter; however, the
effect of rotation and spindle speed was marginal. It was seen
that the tensile stresses increased with an increasing tool
diameter of up to 14 mm and then decreased for above 14-mm
tool diameter. The highest magnitude of tensile stresses was
observed against a wall angle of 40 , whereas it was smaller for
wall angles 20 and 60 . The maximum tensile stress was
1050 MPa that appeared in Test 5.
Compressive stresses were also strongly affected by the wall
angle and tool diameter. It was noticed that by using a larger tool
diameter and a smaller wall angle, compressive stresses
increased. Compressive stresses were seen to consistently
increase with decreasing the wall angle. The highest compressive
stress of 650 MPa was obtained in Test 4.
Fig. 18. Half-normal plot for S1-max (C).
G Model
Fig. 19. Main-effects plot for S1-max (C).
Fig. 20. Two factor interaction for S1-max (C).
Fig. 21. Two factor interaction for maximum compressive stress in direction 3.
G Model
Fig. 22. Half normal plot for T13-max.
Fig. 23. Main effects plot for T13-max.
G Model
Fig. 24. Two factor interaction for T13-max.
From the results obtained in this study, it is possible to propose References

the following guideline for the considered shape and material: To
[1] Micari, F., Hirt, G., Bramley, A., Duflou, J., Allwood, J., Jeswiet, J., 2005, Asym-
maximize the compressive stresses, the process should prefera- metric Single Point Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal..
bly be performed employing a tool diameter of 22 mm and wall [2] Araghi, B.T., Hirt, G., Bambach, M., 2009, Strategies to improve the geometric
angle of 20 ; to minimize tensile stresses, a tool diameter of accuracy in asymmetric single point incremental forming. Prod Eng, 3/no. 2:
145–156.
6 mm, spindle rotation of 3000 rpm, and wall angle of 20 may be [3] Gao, L., Cui, Z., 2010, Studies on Hole-Flanging process using multistage
used; to minimize shear stresses, a feed rate of 3000 mm/min incremental forming. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol, 2/2: 124–128.
and tool diameter of 14 mm or above need to be employed. [4] Ou, H., McCartney ShakirGatea, G., 2016, Review on the influence of process
parameters in incremental sheet forming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 87/1–4:
479–499.
[5] Jeswiet, J., Doolan, M., McAnulty, T., 2017, Formability in single point incre-
Declaration of interest mental forming: a comparitive analysis of the state of the art. CIRP J Manuf Sci
Technol, 16:43–54.
[6] Costantino, I., De Napoli, L., Filice, L., Fratini, L., Muzzupappa, M., Ambrogio, G.,
The authors declare no conflict of interests. 2004, Influence of some relevant process parameters on the dimensional
accuracy in incremental forming: a numerical and experimental investigation.
J Mater Process Technol, 153:501–507.
Funding [7] Jeswiet, J., Hagan, E., 2003, A review of conventional and modern single point
sheet metal forming methods. B: J Eng Manuf, 217/no. 2: 213–225.
The authors are grateful to the Raytheon Chair for Systems [8] Herghelegiu, E., Tampu, N.C., Cristea, I., Radu, C., 2013, The residual stress state
generated by single point incremental forming of aluminum metal sheets.
Engineering for funding. InAppl Mech Mater, 371:148–152.
[9] Siller, H.R., López, C., Diabb, J., Martinez-Romero, O., Sandoval-Robles, Jesús A.,
Acknowledgments Mares, P., Elías-Zúñiga, A., Jiménez, I., 2017, Investigation of residual stress
distribution in single point incremental forming of aluminum parts by X-ray
diffraction technique. Int J Adv Manuf Techno, 91/5-8: 2571–2580.
The authors are thankful to the GIK Institute of Engineering [10] Shi, X., Hussain, G., Butt, S.I., Song, F., Huang, D., Liu, Y., 2017, The state of
Sciences & Technology for providing necessary technical assistance residual stresses in the Cu/Steel bonded laminates after ISF deformation: an
experimental analysis. J Manuf Process, 30:14–26.
and resources. The authors are also grateful to the Raytheon Chair [11] Hussain, G., Al-Ghamdi, K.A., 2017, Stress-gradient due to incremental forming
for Systems Engineering for funding. of roll-bonded laminates. Mater Manuf Process, 32/no. 12: 1384–1390.
G Model
[12] Hussain, G., Wei, H., 2019, Mechanical characteristics of a roll-bonded Cu clad [16] Schajer, G.S., 1988, Measurement of non-uniform residual stresses using the
steel sheet processed through incremental forming. Metall Mater Trans, 50/10: hole-drilling method. Part I—Stress calculation procedures. J Eng Mater Tech-
4594–4607. nol, 110/no. 4: 338–343.
[13] Gao, L., Hayat, N., Hussain, G., 2010, A new parameter and its effect on [17] Göken, M., Höppel, H.W., 2008, Influence of rolling direction on strength and
formability in single point incremental forming: a fundamental investigation. ductility of aluminium and aluminium alloys produced by accumulative roll
J Mech Sci Technol, 24/no. 8: 1617–1621. bonding. J Mater Sci, 43/23-24: 7320–7325.
[14] Jiju Antony, F., Antony, J., 2001, Teaching the Taguchi method to industrial [18] Xue, L., Belytschko, T., Cao, J., Malhotra, R., 2012, Mechanics of fracture in single
engineers. Work Study, 50/no. 4: 141–149. point incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol, 212/no. 7: 1573–1590.
[15] Whitcomb, P.J., Anderson, M.J., 2004, RSM Simplified Optimizing Processes
Using Response Surface Methods for Design of Experiments. CRC press.

Cirp Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cirp Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

CIRPJ 601 No. of Pages 14

CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology

Characterization of residual stresses in an asymmetrical shape

Introduction Residual stresses and their nature are believed to have a

Sr# Rotation (rpm) Feed rate Wall angle Tool diameter

Measurement of residual stresses

Factors Rotation/v Feed rate/f Wall angle/u Tool diameter/d

Fig. 5. Stress proﬁles of annealed sheet.

Fig. 6. Quantiﬁed positions of the rosettes from the center in mm.

Distribution of residual stresses on parts formed by SPIF Table 3

Fig. 7. Residual Stress in Rosette 5 and 10.

Fig. 8. Residual Stress in Rosette 3 and 6.

Fig. 9. Residual stress in Rosette 7 and 8.

The analysis regarding the effect of process parameters was

Fig. 13. Main-effects plot for S1-max (T).

Fig. 16. Main effects plot for S3-max (T).

Fig. 17. Two factor interaction for S3-max (T).

Fig. 19. Main-effects plot for S1-max (C).

Fig. 20. Two factor interaction for S1-max (C).

Fig. 22. Half normal plot for T13-max.

Fig. 23. Main effects plot for T13-max.

Fig. 24. Two factor interaction for T13-max.

 From the results obtained in this study, it is possible to propose References

You might also like

From the results obtained in this study, it is possible to propose References