JMEPEG ASM International

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-019-04446-9 1059-9495/$19.00

Influence of Single-Point Incremental Force Process

Parameters on Forming Characteristics
and Microstructure Evolution of AA-6061 Alloy Sheet
Vivek Kumar Barnwal , Shanta Chakrabarty, Asim Tewari, K. Narasimhan, and Sushil K. Mishra

(Submitted July 19, 2019)

Single-point incremental forming (SPIF) process comprises a set of process variables, such as forming tool
diameter, vertical pitch, spindle rotation speed, and tool velocity, which may affect the forming behavior of
the sheet to be deformed. The objective of this work is to study the effect of SPIF process parameters on
forming characteristics and microstructure development for the AA-6061 (T6) aluminum alloy sheet. The
SPIF experiments and finite element (FE) simulations were performed at different process parameters to
achieve conical shapes from the AA-6061 blanks. The effect of process parameters on forming forces,
thickness uniformity in wall region of the cone and surface roughness of the blank was analyzed. A detailed
microstructure study was performed to analyze the effect of process variables on microstructure and
texture evolution during the SPIF process. This study reveals that the process parameters are likely to
influence the texture development especially at high tool diameter and vertical pitch values. Therefore,
suitability and consequences of using different combinations of tool diameter and vertical pitch values are
discussed for AA-6061 alloy.

However, the demand for high formability has been growing

Keywords forming forces, microstructure, process parameters,
single-point incremental forming, surface roughness,
texture
1. Introduction
The AA-6061 aluminum alloy sheet comprises Mg and Si as
its primary constituents and is widely used in automotive and
aerospace industries due its high strength-to-weight ratio (Ref
1, 2). At room temperature, this alloy generally shows limited
formability in age-hardened (T6) condition (Ref 3). Also,
forming at warm/high temperature for this alloy remains a
challenge due to its susceptibility to over aging (Ref 4).
Vivek Kumar Barnwal, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076,
India; National Centre for Aerospace Innovation and Research, Indian
Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; and
Graduate Institute of Ferrous Technology, Pohang University of
Science and Technology, 77 Cheongam-Ro, Nam-Gu, Pohang 37673,
South Korea; Shanta Chakrabarty, Department of Metallurgical
Engineering and Materials Science, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; and School of Mechanical
Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha 751024, India; Asim Tewari, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai
400076, India; and National Centre for Aerospace Innovation and
Research, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai
400076, India; K. Narasimhan, Department of Metallurgical
Engineering and Materials Science, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; and Sushil K. Mishra,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. Contact e-mail:
vivekkumar.barnwal@gmail.com.
continuously due to the need for producing complex shapes for
various industrial applications. An alternative sheet metal
forming process, known as single-point incremental forming
(SPIF), has shown that this alloy shows significantly higher
formability even at room temperature (Ref 5). In this work, a
detailed study has been carried out to analyze the effect of SPIF
process parameters on forming behavior of the AA-6061 alloy.
The SPIF process is an innovative and flexible sheet forming
process which can be used to produce symmetric as well as
asymmetric shapes (Ref 6, 7). Various studies have shown that
this process enhances the formability of the sheet significantly
(Ref 8-10). Researchers have attributed the increase in forma-
bility to different deformation mechanisms active during the
SPIF. Most of the researchers have claimed that the presence of
shear during the SPIF is the main source of increase in
formability (Ref 11-13). The SPIF process comprises a number
of process parameters which may affect forming behavior and
in turn performance and/or quality of the final product (Ref 12-
15). Some of these important parameters are forming tool
diameter, vertical pitch, tool velocity (also referred as tool
travel speed or feed), spindle rotation speed and toolpath. (Ref
6, 13, 14). Most of the studies have shown that among all the
parameters, forming tool diameter and vertical pitch affect the
deformation behavior significantly during the SPIF process.
Studies have also shown that in general tool travel and spindle
rotation speeds do not affect the forming behavior as much as
tool diameter and vertical pitch in the SPIF process (Ref 15-18).
As for as toolpath is concerned, spiral toolpath is preferred over
circular toolpaths (with incremental steps) in order to prevent
the surface degradation from orange peel effect (Ref 6).
Ambrogio (2011) carried out the SPIF experiments at
different tool travel velocities for three different aluminum
alloy grade sheets and suggested that tool travel velocity does
not affect surface roughness properties of the sheet (Ref 19). In
contrast, several other groups studied the effect of tool diameter

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

and vertical pitch, and reported that surface roughness increases
with the decrease in forming tool diameter and increase in vertical
pitch (Ref 20, 21). Similarly, the effect of process parameters on
forming forces during the SPIF process has also been reported. It
was found that the force required to deform the sheet increases
with the increase in tool diameter as well as vertical pitch (Ref 22-
24). A few research groups have formulated force models to
predict the forming forces in the SPIF process (Ref 24, 25).
However, these works suggest further improvement in force
modeling due to variation in the predicted and experimental
results. Similarly, all the studies and results obtained from various
literatures insist on further process parameter optimization and
process modeling for different materials during the SPIF process.
Further, to the best of the authorsÕ knowledge, limited literatures
are available on the effect of process parameters on microstruc-
tural evolution of the sheet metal during the SPIF process,
especially for aluminum alloys. However, it is well-understood
that microstructure and crystallographic textures of this alloy
change significantly during plastic deformation for conventional
forming as well as the SPIF (Ref 26-28). Therefore, there is a need
to first analyze the effect of the SPIF process parameters on
forming behavior and microstructural evolution during the SPIF
process and subsequently use the results for the selection of input
parameters based on manufacturerÕs requirements.
This work has been carried out to investigate the effect of
the SPIF process parameters on forming behavior and
microstructure development of the AA-6061 aluminum alloy
sheet. The SPIF experiments were conducted on the AA-6061
sheets for a range of process parameters, and variation in
forming forces, thickness distribution, surface roughness and
microstructure was studied. Finite element (FE) simulations
were also carried out and results were compared with
experiments. A comprehensive microstructural study was
carried out to understand the microstructure and texture
evolution at different process parameters during the SPIF
process. This study clearly shows that selection of tool diameter
and vertical pitch value is the key to attain uniform thickness,
smooth surface, and minimize forming forces during the SPIF
process. This study also shows that plastic deformation in the
SPIF process causes significant variation in texture intensity,
and cube and brass texture components especially at large tool
forming diameter and vertical pitch values. Based on these
findings, the most suitable set of process parameters are
discussed for the SPIF forming of AA-6061 alloy.
2. Experiments
Experiments were conducted on a 1.0 mm thick AA-6061
(T6) aluminum alloy sheet. The SPIF experiments were
conducted to achieve conical shapes from the AA-6061
Table 1 Mechanical properties of AA-6061 (T6) aluminum alloy obtained using tension and r-bar tests (Ref 3)
YS, MPa UTS, MPa
RD 265 308
ID 255 293
TD 238 274
YS yield strength, UTS ultimate tensile strength, PE percentage elongation
blanks. Apart from the SPIF experiments, uniaxial tension
and r-bar tests are conducted (in three directions, i.e., 0, 45
and 90 with respect to rolling direction of the sheet) to
estimate the mechanical properties of the material, and given
in Table 1. In this work, 0, 45 and 90 are referred as
rolling direction (RD), inclined direction (ID) and transverse
direction (TD), respectively. The experiments were repeated
three times to attain good repeatability. The detailed discus-
sion on mechanical properties of the material can be found in
our previous work on the same material (Ref 3). The SPIF
experiments were conducted for a range of process param-
eters, and their influences on forming behavior of AA-6061
blanks for the SPIF were studied. The blanks of
160 9 160 mm2 dimensions were clamped between two
blank holders using 16 9 M6 bolts to prevent any slip
during deformation. The internal and external dimensions of
the blank holders were 120 9 120 mm2 and
160 9 160 mm2, respectively. This assembly was mounted
on a charge-based three-channel Kistler-9257A dynamometer.
The complete assembly of the dynamometer, blank holders
and blank was rigidly mounted on a three-axis CNC milling
machine (Hardinge VMC 600) bed as shown in Fig. 1a. The
forming forces were measured in three different directions (x,
y and z) using three different amplifiers. Results were
obtained from these amplifiers using NI-Labview data
acquisition system as shown in Fig. 1b. Various studies on
the SPIF have shown that linear tool velocity does not affect
the forming behavior of the sheet (Ref 16, 17). Therefore, a
constant value of the linear tool velocity (2000 mm/min-
utes  33.33 mm/s) was used for all the experiments. To
explore the effect of vertical pitch and forming tool diameter
on forming behavior of AA-6061 alloy in the SPIF process,
a range of vertical pitch and tool diameter values, as given in
Table 2, was used to deform the aluminum blank into conical
shapes. The dimensions of the cone were as follows: outer
diameter of 70 mm, inner diameter of 25 mm and wall angle
of 45. The dimensions of conical geometry and process
parameters used in the SPIF experiments are also given in
Table 2. The spiral toolpath (shown in Fig. 1c), to realize
these conical shapes, was achieved using macro-program-
ming. Castor oil was applied on the blanks during the SPIF
process to minimize the friction between the tool and the
blank. Strain measurement for the SPIF experiments was
obtained using optical strain measurement technique. Regular
black circular dots of 0.5 mm diameter were developed on
one side of the blank using electro-chemical etching. The
opposite side of the blank was used for the SPIF process,
where the tool comes into the contact with the blank. A
series of images was captured from different orientations
before and after the deformation of the blank. These images
were processed using the commercial software ARGUS to
measure the strain distribution after deformation.
Elongation, % Plastic anisotropy r mean
14.45 r0 = 0.558 0.70
12.36 r45 = 0.70
13.06 r90 = 0.833
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 1 (a) Fixture setup for force measurement, (b) data acquisition system and (c) spiral toolpath
Table 2 Process parameters and cone geometry used in the SPIF process
Inner diameter Outer diameter
of the cone of the cone Wall angle Tool diameter
25 mm 70 mm 45 7, 10, 13 mm
Fig. 2 Boundary conditions applied for the SPIF simulations
3. Finite Element (FE) Study
FE study of the SPIF process was carried out using Abaqus/
Explicit solver. The dimensions and geometry of the blank and
forming tools were kept identical to the experiments. Appro-
priate boundary conditions were applied to imitate the SPIF
experiments in simulations. The blank was fixed around its
periphery in all the directions, as shown in Fig. 2, and the
displacement boundary condition was applied on the forming
tool. The fixed region in numerical model replicates the
dimensions of the blank holders in the SPIF experiments. S4R
elements with 2.0 mm mesh size and five integration points
were used for blank discretization. The step time was optimized
to ensure that the ratio between kinetic and total energy remains
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Spindle rotation Linear velocity Sheet
Vertical pitch speed of the tool thickness
0.3, 0.5, 0.7 mm 10 (RPM) 2000 mm/min 1.0 mm
below 4%. The friction coefficient between forming tool and
blank was assumed to be 0.08 (Ref 17). The process parameters
were kept similar to those in the SPIF experiments. Spiral
toolpaths similar to experiments were given to the forming tool
to perform the simulation.
Several iterations of the SPIF simulations were performed to
decide the constitutive equations. These iterations were per-
formed for the 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool diameter
condition. Two yield criteria, namely von Mises and Hill-48,
were used to describe the yielding (Ref 29). Two different
hardening equations, namely Swift and Voce (Ref 30), were
used to describe the hardening behavior of the material.
Coefficients for the Hill-48 were calculated from the yield
stress in RD and r-values in RD, ID and TD reported in Table 1
(Ref 29). Hardening parameters were obtained from curve
fitting of the stress–strain data obtained from uniaxial tension
test in RD. All the constitutive equations and their parameters
used in present study are given in Table 3. Thus, effort was
made to arrive at most accurate combination of yield and
hardening criteria to perform the simulations for the remaining
SPIF process parameter conditions.
4. Microstructure Characterization
A detailed microstructure and texture analysis on the
deformed SPIF blanks was carried out using electron backscat-
tering diffraction (EBSD) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) tech-
niques. A small area (300 9 300 lm2) from the deformed
region of each blank was cut and prepared for the microstruc-
ture and texture analysis. The sample surface was polished with
gradually finer water-based diamond suspensions (to a size of
1 lm). Thereafter, electro-polishing was done on the same
surface using A2 electrolyte (STRUERS) at 13 V for 16 s.
EBSD scans were done using FEI Quanta 200 Hv scanning
electron microscope equipped with TSL-OIM orientation
Table 3 Various constitutive equations and their parameters used in present study for FE study (Ref 29, 30)
Criterion Equation

2
Von Mises ðrxx Þ2
þ ryy rxx ryy ¼ ðYS Þ2

2 2
Hill-48 F ryy þGðrxx Þ
2 þH rxx  ryy þ2N r2xy ¼ 1
X
Swift r ¼ X1 X2 þ ep 3
X 1 = 490.26
Voce r ¼ X1  X2 exp X3 ep
rxx, ryy, rzz—stresses in x, y and z directions, rxy—shear stress in xy plane, YS—yield stress and ep—true plastic strain
imaging microscopy software. These EBSD scans were used
for comparing the inverse pole figure (IPF) maps and misori-
entation development at different process parameters. The
crystallographic texture of the AA-6061 aluminum alloy
changes significantly during deformation (Ref 26). To examine
the texture evolution during the SPIF process, the same samples
were used for bulk texture analysis using ‘‘Panalytical MRD’’
x-ray system. Bulk texture measurement provides higher
reliability due to scanning of a larger volume as compared to
EBSD scans. Orientation distribution function (ODF) and
texture index (TI) were estimated for each sample by the
inversion of 3-4 incomplete pole figures of corresponding
phases using the MTM-FHM (K. U. Leuven, Department
MTM-fast harmonic measurements) program (Ref 31).
5. Results and Discussion
The AA-6061 aluminum alloy sheet was subjected to the
SPIF process to achieve cones of 70 mm outer diameter,
25 mm inner diameter and 45 wall angle. Only one process
parameter (either forming tool diameter or vertical pitch) was
varied at a time, while all other parameters were kept identical
throughout the SPIF experiments and simulations. The forming
tool diameters of 7, 10 and 13 mm and vertical pitch values of
0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm were used in this study. The process
parameters were derived from the SPIF experiments performed
on aluminum alloy sheets by other researchers (Ref 18, 22).
These cones were used to examine the effect of process
parameters on forming behavior of the material at macroscales
(forming forces, thickness strain distribution, and surface
roughness) and microscales (microstructure and crystallo-
graphic texture development) during the SPIF process.
5.1 Forming Forces
Forming forces were calculated in Cartesian coordinates (x,
y and z directions) using a three-axis charge-based dynamome-
ter during the SPIF experiments. Subsequently, the force
components in x, y and z directions were utilized to calculate
the force components in terms of axial and planer forces. The z-
direction was parallel to the forming tool axis, hence the forces
in that direction is called axial force (Fa) in this study. The
planer forces (Fxy) are calculated using Eq. 1 (Ref 25). Figure 3
shows both axial and planer forces at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and
13 mm tool diameter during the SPIF process. Here, x-axis
shows deformation time in seconds (s) and y-axis shows both
forming forces in Newton (N). This figure shows that the axial
force (Fa) is higher than the planer force (Fxy) during the SPIF
Parameters
…
F = 0.44 G = 0.63 H = 0.37 N = 1.29
X 2 = 0.04 X 3 = 0.18
X1 = 390.45 X2 = 117.86 X3 = 8.74
Fig. 3 Different forming forces acting in experimental SPIF
process
process. This figure also demonstrates that both axial and
planer forces increase sharply during initial contours of the tool
motion and thereafter become almost constant (flat region of
the curve) for the remaining contours of the toolpath. These
observations are consistent with the observations made by other
researchers (Ref 22, 25, 32). The average forming force in the
flat region of the curve is used to compare the effect of the SPIF
process parameters on forming forces (both axial and planer)
required to deform the AA-6061 sheet (Fig. 4).
 12
Fxy ¼ Fx2 þ Fy2 ðEq 1Þ
where Fxy—planer force, Fx—force in the x-direction and
Fy—force in the y-direction.
The effect of tool diameter on axial and planer forming
forces during the SPIF experiments is shown, respectively, in
Fig. 4a and b. The axial force at different tool diameter and
vertical pitch values varied between 940 and 1240 N, whereas
planer forces varied between 480 and 750 N. Further, these
figures show that forces exerted (both axial and planer) to
deform the blank rises with the increase in tool diameter for any
given vertical pitch value (0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm). This can be
attributed to enlargement in contact area between forming tool
and blank with an increase in the tool diameter. Consequently,
the forces required to deform the blank also rises with the
increase in the tool diameter. Figure 4a also shows that the rise
in forming forces in axial direction is steep at 13 mm forming
tool diameter especially at 0.3 mm vertical pitch value.
Therefore, lower forming tool diameters (7 and 10 mm) may
be prescribed to minimize the required forming forces during
the SPIF process. It should also be noted that though blanks
deformed at low vertical pitch value require less amount of
forming forces; however, the process time to achieve the final
product increases considerably (due to longer toolpath at low
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 4 Effect of tool diameter on (a) axial and (b) planer forces in the SPIF process (obtained experimentally)

Fig. 5 Thickness strain distribution in (a) experiment (b) simulation achieved at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool diameter

vertical pitch value). Therefore, selection of vertical pitch plays pitch values. These figures also show that thickness variation
an important role in striking a balance between exerted forming was observed only in the wall region of the cone where the
forces and deformation time in the SPIF process. forming tool was in contact with AA-6061 aluminum alloy
blank. The center region of the cone, where no interaction
5.2 Thickness Distribution between forming tool and blank occurred, does not show any
variation in thickness distribution regardless of the process
Thickness distribution on experimentally deformed cones
parameters during the SPIF deformation of this alloy. The
was analyzed using optical strain measurement technique. The
thickness in the wall region of the cone varied between
GOM system (combined with ARGUS software) calculates the
0.55 mm to 0.70 mm at different forming tool diameter and
thickness distribution based on the volume constancy law.
vertical pitch values. Moreover, Fig. 6a shows that the
Figure 5a shows the thickness strain distribution on the
thickness at the deformed region of the cone decreases with
experimentally obtained cone, at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and
increase in tool diameter during the SPIF process. Similarly,
13 mm tool diameter. Similarly, Fig. 5b shows thickness strain
Fig. 6b shows the effect of vertical pitch on thickness
distribution on the cone obtained using the SPIF simulation
distribution during the SPIF process. Though this figure does
(Hill + Swift criteria), at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool
not show any specific trend on the effect of vertical pitch on
diameter. Figure 5a shows that the strain development occurred
thickness strain level in the SPIF process, the effect of vertical
mainly in the deformed region of the blank where forming tool
pitch on uniformity of thickness distribution at the deformed
and blank were in direct contact, whereas the other regions
region is clearly evident. It can be observed clearly that
experienced some bending during the SPIF process. Exactly
thickness uniformity increases with decrease in vertical pitch
similar observations were made for all the other experimentally
value. These effects of tool diameter (7, 10, 13 mm) and
deformed cones irrespective of forming tool diameter and
vertical pitch values (0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm) on strain and
vertical pitch values. Hence, thickness strain distribution is
thickness distribution were consistent for all the cases. There-
shown here only for the case of 0.7 mm vertical pitch and
fore, only one case from each set, varying tool diameter (7, 10,
13 mm forming tool diameter.
13 mm) at 0.3 mm vertical pitch and varying vertical pitch (0.3,
Next, Fig. 6a and b compares the effect of tool diameter and
0.5 and 0.7 mm) at 7 mm tool diameter, is shown and discussed
vertical pitch values on blank thickness distribution during the
in the present work to avoid repetition.
SPIF process. The thickness of the deformed blank is plotted on
The thickness uniformity at lower vertical pitch values can
the ordinate and the section length of the blank is plotted on the
be attributed to the fact that the forming tool travels several
abscissa of the graph at different tool diameters and vertical

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Fig. 6 Effect of process parameters (a) tool diameter and (b) vertical pitch on thickness distribution in the SPIF process, obtained
experimentally

times over a localized region on the blank for a small vertical

pitch value, which results in more uniform strain distribution
during the SPIF process. Therefore, a lower vertical pitch value
can be recommended to achieve higher thickness uniformity
during the SPIF process. However, selection of process
parameters also depends on their effects on surface roughness
of the blank, forming forces and time (process speed) required
to perform the process (Ref 6). Therefore, further analysis has
been carried out to recommend a suitable combination of tool
diameter and vertical pitch values for the SPIF process
especially for the AA-6061 alloy sheet.

5.3 Surface Roughness

The surface roughness was measured at the wall region of
the experimentally deformed cone using white light interfer-
ometry (Wyko NT8000 make). These measurements were
obtained for all the cones deformed at different forming tool
diameters and vertical pitch values. Figure 7 compares the
effect of tool diameter and vertical pitch values on surface
roughness of the AA-6061 aluminum alloy sheet. It can be
observed from this figure that the surface roughness (Ra) of this
alloy is directly a function of tool diameter and vertical pitch
values in the SPIF process. An increase in forming tool
diameter results in lower surface roughness value, whereas an
increase in vertical pitch results in higher surface roughness
value. This is due to a particular region on the blank coming
into contact with the forming tool several times at both higher
tool diameter and lower vertical pitch values, which helps in
smoothening the surface. Therefore, high tool diameters and
low vertical pitch values minimize the surface roughness of the
blank during the SPIF process. Though the higher tool diameter
results in improved surface roughness, it also requires higher
forming forces during the deformation (Fig. 4). Similarly, it is
previously mentioned in Sect. 5.1 that the low vertical pitch
value requires a longer time duration to achieve a three-
Fig. 7 Effect of tool diameter and vertical pitch on surface
roughness during the SPIF process
dimensional shape using the SPIF process. Therefore, a balance
must be achieved between tool diameter and vertical pitch
value to optimize thickness uniformity, forming forces, time
required to complete the process and surface roughness during
the SPIF process of this alloy. The issue is discussed in detail in
Sect. 5.6.
5.4 Finite Element (FE) Results
The effects of the process parameters in the SPIF process
were also studied using FE simulations. This study was carried
out using Abaqus/Explicit solver at different tool diameters and
vertical pitch values. The conical shapes exactly similar to the
SPIF experimental cones were realized using process param-
eters as in the experiments (Table 2). Before that, several
iterations of numerical simulations were performed using two
different yields (Hill-48 and von Mises) and two different
hardening (Swift and Voce) criteria (Ref 29, 30). This exercise
was performed (only for 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool
diameter case) to identify a suitable set of constitutive equations

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance


Fig. 8 Effect of different constitutive equations on (a) axial and (b)
planer forming forces during the SPIF process
for describing material behavior of AA-6061 sheet during the
SPIF. The expressions and values of different constitutive laws
used in present study are given in Table 3. Figure 8a and b
shows the performance of these constitutive criteria in terms of
exerted forming forces during the SPIF. Figure 8a shows that
predicted axial force is higher than experimental axial force
regardless of any combination of yield and hardening laws. In
contrast, Fig. 8b illustrates that numerical predictions underes-
timate planer forces for combination of constitutive equations
used in this study. The origin of this discrepancy between
experimental and predicted forming forces is possibly due to
inaccurate description of yield behavior of AA-6061 sheet
using von Mises and Hill-48 criteria (Ref 29). Variation in r-
values (shown in Table 1) means that the material used in
present study is anisotropic, whereas von Mises yield criterion
is suitable only for isotropic materials. In contrast, although
Hill-48 is formulated to capture the anisotropic yielding of
sheets, this criterion also has certain limitations. It has been
demonstrated already that Hill-48 parameters (F, G, H, L, M
and N), obtained based on r-values in RD, ID, TD and yield
stress in RD, although predict the variation in r-value
reasonably well, however lack in reliable description of yield
stresses at different orientations. Moreover, it has also been
shown (Ref 29) that Hill-48 is not suitable if YSRD > YSTD
but rRD < rTD which is the case with the material used in
current study (refer to Table 1). (Here, YS and r denote yield
stress and r-value, respectively, whereas subscripts RD and TD
indicate sheet direction). Consequently, predicted forming
forces are not in very good agreement with experimentally
measured forming forces. Figure 8a and b also shows that Swift
hardening criterion predicts higher forming forces compared to
Voce criterion. In case of axial force, Voce is closer to
experiments compared to Swift. Contrasting to this, Swift gives
better prediction for planer forces compared to Voce. Eventu-
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
ally, only Hill-48 + Swift was used to simulate the SPIF
process for remaining process parameter conditions as these
simulations require significantly large computation time. More-
over, although, advanced non-quadratic yield criteria require
additional anisotropy parameters (yield strength and r-value
under biaxial state of stress), they must be considered in future
to accurately describe the material behavior of this alloy. The
strain distribution between the SPIF experiments and simula-
tions, in terms of major true strain, is compared in Table 4,
qualitatively. In general, extent of strain in both experiments
and simulations are comparable irrespective of process param-
eters. A detailed discussion on variation in forming forces and
thickness distribution, based on Hill-48 + Swift criteria, at
different process parameters with respect to experiments is
made in further sections.
5.5 Forming Forces in SPIF Simulations
The forming forces required to deform the AA-6061 sheets
were predicted from the SPIF simulations and results were
compared with respective experiments. Comparison of pre-
dicted and experimental forming forces at different tool
diameter and vertical pitch values is shown in Fig. 9a and b.
This figure compares the experimental (regular lines) and
predicted forming forces (both axial and planer) (dotted lines)
at varying tool diameters (7, 10 and 13 mm) and constant
vertical pitch (0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm) values. Figure 9a shows
the similar trend on effect of tool diameter on axial forces
during the SPIF simulation as in the SPIF experiments. As the
tool diameter increases, the axial force required to deform the
blank also increases both in experiments and in simulations.
However, predicted axial forces to deform the blanks are higher
than experimentally measured axial force. Although, the trend
is similar for the planer forces also, the predicted planer forces
are lower than experimental forces (refer to Fig. 9b).
5.6 Thickness Distribution in SPIF Simulations
The thickness distribution was measured across the blankÕs
section length for all the cones, and the results were compared
with the experimental results. Figure 5b shows the thickness
strain distribution on the cone achieved from the SPIF
simulation at 0.7 mm vertical pitch and 13 mm tool diameter
using Hill-48 + Swift equations. Similar to the SPIF experi-
ments (Fig. 5a), this figure also shows that deformation is
limited to wall region of the cone where the forming tool came
into contact with the blank. Figure 10a and b shows the
comparison of experimental results (regular lines) and simula-
tion results (dotted lines) for thickness distribution at different
tool diameters and vertical pitch values, respectively. Fig-
ure 10a compares the experimental and simulated thickness
distribution at varying tool diameter (7, 10 and 13 mm) and
constant vertical pitch (0.3 mm) values. Similarly, Fig. 10b
compares the experimental and simulated thickness distribution
at constant tool diameter (7 mm) and varying vertical pitch
(0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm) values. These figures show that the
thickness distributions obtained from simulations are in good
approximation with experimentally obtained thickness distri-
butions at any given forming tool diameter value during the
SPIF process. However, simulations show slight unevenness in
strain distribution, in turn thickness, in the wall region of the
cone. This unevenness can be minimized by reducing the mesh
size in simulations. However, that would require significantly
high computational capabilities. The comparison between
Table 4 Major true strain distribution on the SPIF cones of AA-6061 alloy based on experiments and simulations (Hill-
48+Swift material models were used for simulations)
Experiment
P=0.3 mm, D=7 mm P=0.3 mm, D=10 mm P=0.3 mm, D=13 mm
P=0.5 mm, D=7 mm P=0.5 mm, D=10 mm P=0.5 mm, D=13 mm
P=0.7 mm, D=7 mm P=0.7 mm, D=10 mm P=0.7 mm, D=13 mm
Fig. 9 Effect of tool diameter on (a) axial and (b) planer forces in the SPIF process (experiments and simulations)
experimental and simulation results for thickness distribution
was consistent for all the tool diameters (7, 10 and 13 mm) and
vertical pitch (0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 mm) values.
This detailed comparison between SPIF experimental and
simulation results shows that although predicted thickness
distribution shows a trend similar to the experimental strain
distribution at different tool diameter and vertical pitch values;
however, force prediction is not accurate especially axial force.
A more accurate numerical description of the SPIF for AA-
6061 alloy can be achieved possibly by utilizing advanced non-
quadratic yield criteria which requires additional biaxial
experiment. Another source of difference between experimental
Simulation
P=0.3 mm, D=7 mm P=0.3 mm, D=10 mm P=0.3 mm, D=13 mm
P=0.5 mm, D=7 mm P=0.5 mm, D=10 mm P=0.5 mm, D=13 mm
P=0.7 mm, D=7 mm P=0.7 mm, D=10 mm P=0.7 mm, D=13 mm
and predicted forming forces is possibly the contact property
between forming tool and blank in simulations. It should be
noted that a constant friction coefficient (i.e., 0.08) between
forming tool and the blank was used for all the SPIF
simulations, whereas in SPIF experiments, the interface
between these two (tool and blank) keeps changing causing
dynamic contact between forming tool and blank (Ref 33).
Hence, the friction coefficient between forming tool and blank
may also vary especially with plastic deformation on the blank.
Accordingly, further efforts are required in future to optimize
the friction coefficient and material models for the SPIF
simulations of AA-6061 sheets.
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 10 Effect of process parameters (a) tool diameter and (b) vertical pitch on thickness distribution in the SPIF process (experiments and
simulations)

5.7 Microstructural Analysis parameters on misorientation development. Next, Fig. 11 also

shows that crystallographic orientation of the sheet changes
A detailed microstructural study was conducted to under-
after deformation which means texture development takes place
stand the effect of process parameters on microstructure and
due to deformation. The variation in texture development at
crystallographic texture development during the SPIF process.
different condition is examined through bulk texture analysis
Samples were prepared from the deformed region of the blank
and discussed below.
as marked in Fig. 13a and characterized using EBSD and XRD
The bulk texture analysis gives a clear understanding of
techniques. IPF maps obtained from EBSD for undeformed and
crystallographic texture development during the SPIF process.
deformed specimens at different conditions are shown in
ODF and TI are the two conventional ways of representation of
Fig. 11c–l. Each point within an IPF map is identified by its
texture in which ODF is a probabilistic density function to
crystallographic orientation. Various colors and their corre-
determine the intensity or volume fraction of any crystallo-
sponding crystallographic orientations are shown in the IPF
graphic texture in Euler space. It is well-confirmed that only
legend (Fig. 11b). The black points in the IPF maps are non-
three sections (/2 = 45º, 65º and 90º) of 2D ODF are sufficient
indexed points for which crystallographic orientations could
to represent all the significant texture components for AA-6061
not be calculated by the EBSD measurement. In Fig. 11c–l, it
aluminum alloy (Ref 35–38). Therefore, only these three
can be observed that the non-indexing points are more in the
sections of ODFs for different process parameters are shown in
deformed samples as compared to undeformed condition which
Fig. 13. Various colored symbols are used to demonstrate the
signifies the large plastic deformation during the SPIF process
location of various standard texture components in a face-
(Ref 26). The development of misorientation during deforma-
centered cubic crystal. It is observed from Fig. 15 that this alloy
tion was quantified in terms of grain average misorientation
contains mainly cube {001} <100>, goss {011} <100>,
(GAM) which is calculated by the average misorientation
copper {112} <111>, brass {011} <211> and S {123}
among neighboring points within a grain (Ref 34). Misorien-
<634> texture components. This figure also shows consid-
tation development in AA-6061 is mainly due to slip defor-
erable variation especially in cube and brass texture compo-
mation mechanism (movement of dislocations) during
nents. The volume fraction of each texture component was
deformation (Ref 35). The measured GAM value for all the
determined and compared quantitatively with respect to various
specimens plotted at constant vertical pitch and varying tool
process parameters as shown in Fig. 14a–d.
diameters is shown in Fig. 12. Significant misorientation
The variation of cube texture {001} <100> at different
development is observed in the deformed sample. The misori-
tool diameters and vertical pitch values during the SPIF process
entation development is least for the smallest vertical pitch
is shown in Fig. 14a. It is observed that the volume fraction of
value (0.3 mm), except for the tool diameter of 13 mm. Other
cube texture decreases with deformation and this reduction is
than that, no specific trend was observed on effect of process

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Fig. 11 (a) location for EBSD study, (b) notations, (c) IPF map in undeformed condition and (d-l) IPF maps after deformation at different
process parameters during the SPIF process
Fig. 12 Effect of process parameters on
misorientation (GAM) during the SPIF process
different at different process parameters. At 0.3 and 0.5 mm
vertical pitch, the cube texture {001} <100> decreases with
increase in tool diameter, whereas for 0.7 mm vertical pitch, the
volume fraction of cube texture component is almost the same
for all three tool diameters. Figure 14b shows the variation of
goss texture at different tool diameters and vertical pitch values.
The volume fraction of goss texture {011} <100> component
is highest at large vertical pitch (0.7 mm) irrespective of tool
diameter. S-texture does not show any clear trend with various
SPIF process parameters (vertical pitch and tool diameter) as
shown in Fig. 14c. The variation of brass {011} <211>
component with different parameters are plotted in Fig. 14d. It
grain average is observed that the volume fraction of this texture component
increases sharply with deformation during the SPIF process.
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Fig. 13 ODF sections (at /2 = 45º, 65º and 90º) for the SPIF samples deformed with forming tool of 7 mm diameter
With increase in tool diameter, the volume fraction of brass
component increases barring one exception at tool diameter
of 10 mm and vertical pitch 0.5 mm. This figure also shows
that the volume fraction of brass texture is considerably
higher at high vertical pitch and tool diameter values. The
available literatures on deformation behavior of aluminum
alloys show that the reduction in cube texture causes
increase in brass texture (Ref 38, 39). A similar behavior is
observed in this work, where cube texture decreases while
brass texture increases for AA-6061 alloy during the SPIF
process.
Compared to conventional maximum ODF intensity value,
TI is considered to be a better way of representation of
texturing (Ref 40). TI values are calculated for each sample
before and after deformation at different process parameters and
plotted in Fig. 15. This figure shows the higher TI values at
high tool diameters and vertical pitch. This trend is due to the
significant texturing of AA-6061 aluminum alloy during
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
deformation with the sharp increase in brass {011} <211>
texture component (Fig. 14d).
These variations in volume fraction of texture components
affect the yield locus and plastic anisotropy of the sheet
significantly. It has been found that an increase in cube texture
component leads to an increase in r-value in RD and TD
directions of the sheet. In contrast, brass texture component
leads to reduction in r-value in RD and TD direction and
increase in ID direction. Similarly, variation in goss and S-
texture components also leads to directional properties for this
alloy (Ref 26, 41). The detailed discussion on effect of texture
components on anisotropic behavior of the AA-6061 alloy
sheet is explained elsewhere (Ref 3). These variations in yield
locus and r-values in different directions may affect the sheet
formability and its performance significantly. Consequently, the
performance of the final product will depend on the process
parameters employed during the SPIF process. Though the
texture effect is not significant for this alloy during the SPIF
Fig. 14 Volume fractions of different texture components at different tool diameter and vertical pitch values (a) cube texture, (b) goss texture,
(c) S-texture and (d) brass texture
Fig. 15 Texture index (TI) measured at different tool diameter and
vertical pitch values during the SPIF process
process unlike conventional forming (Ref 26), still it may lead
to anisotropy development after deformation which will affect
the properties and performance of the deformed product during
its service. Therefore, the combination of high tool diameter
and high vertical pitch value where texture development is
higher compared to other combinations should be avoided to
minimize the anisotropy behavior after SPIF deformation of
AA-6061 alloy.
5.8 Discussion on Selection of Process Parameters
This work clearly highlights the challenges associated with
the selection of the SPIF process parameters. In general, low
vertical pitch is recommended to achieve high thickness
uniformity and low surface roughness in addition to relatively
low forming forces as discussed in Sect. 5.1-5.3. Moreover, the
texture development is also relatively small at low vertical pitch
(i.e., for 0.3 mm vertical pitch) for AA-6061 alloy, as shown in
Fig. 15. The only drawback in considering the low vertical
pitch for the SPIF is high process time due to longer toolpath.
The SPIF itself is a slow process compared to the conventional
forming process and further increase in process time due to low
pitch may not be advisable for large-scale production. In
comparison, selection of tool diameter is more challenging than
the vertical pitch. High tool diameter is good for enhanced
surface finish (Fig. 7), but large forming forces are required to
deform the blank at high tool diameter (Fig. 4). It is to be noted
that forming forces are directly related to the capacity and
rigidity of the machine tool on which actual SPIF process is
carried out. Further, it is also recommended that a combination
of high tool diameter and vertical pitch should be avoided in
order to prevent the development of high anisotropy for AA-
6061 alloy, as discussed in Sect. 5.5.
The above discussion shows that it is not possible to
recommend a single combination of tool diameter and vertical
pitch value favorable to all the considerations in the SPIF
process. Nevertheless, it is possible to recommend a suit-
able combination of tool diameter and vertical pitch value
based on specific product requirements and forming conditions.
In view of this, the results obtained from Sects. 5.1-5.5 are
summarized in Table 5. This table comprises all the combina-
tions of tool diameters and vertical pitch values used in this
study and their effects on thickness uniformity, forming force,
surface roughness and texture index. The process time and
thickness uniformity are categorized as low (L), medium (M)
and high (H) in Table 5. Figure 3 and 4 show that axial forming
force is significantly higher than planer forces; therefore, only
axial forming forces are listed in Table 5. This table can be
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Table 5 Effect of tool diameter and vertical pitch on thickness uniformity, forming force, surface roughness and texture
index in the SPIF process
S. Combination of tool diameter (D) and vertical Thickness Axial forming Surface roughness, Texture
N. pitch (P) Time uniformity force, N lm index

1 D = 7 mm, P = 0.3 mm H H 940 3.452 1.805

2 D = 7 mm, P = 0.5 mm M L 980 3.772 1.56
3 D = 7 mm, P = 0.7 mm L L 1040 4.424 1.643
4 D = 10 mm, P = 0.3 mm H H 990 2.534 1.684
5 D = 10 mm, P = 0.5 mm M M 1120 2.678 1.787
6 D = 10 mm, P = 0.7 mm L M 1160 3.118 2.112
7 D = 13 mm, P = 0.3 mm H M 1140 1.628 1.79
8 D = 13 mm, P = 0.5 mm M L 1225 2.036 1.719
9 D = 13 mm, P = 0.7 mm L L 1240 2.45 2.204
D tool diameter, P vertical pitch, L low, M medium and H high

referred for adopting the most suited combination of tool Acknowledgments

diameter and vertical pitch value based on the requirements of
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
manufacturer. It is emphasized here that this table is valid only
for this work by the National Centre for Aerospace Innovation and
for the AA-6061 and similar aluminum alloy sheets under the
Research, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, India.
given process parameter range.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
6. Summary and Conclusions

AA-6061 aluminum alloy sheet was subjected to the SPIF

process at different tool diameters and vertical pitch values.
Thickness distribution, forming forces and surface roughness
after deformation were calculated to study the influence of the
process parameters during the SPIF process. Comprehensive
microstructural and texture studies were also performed to
understand the micro-deformation mechanism at different
process variables. The major conclusions drawn from this
study are as follows:
• Tool diameter and vertical pitch values affect the thickness
uniformity of the blank significantly after deformation. To
achieve better surface uniformity, low vertical pitch value
is recommended.
• Simulation results predict strain distribution across the
blank quite well; however, advanced material models and
accurate friction property should be considered to predict
the forming forces accurately in the SPIF.
• The misorientation development was observed for all the
deformed samples regardless of the process parameters.
However, the selection of process parameter does not
show any clear trend on extent of misorientation develop-
ment.
• Micro-scale investigations also show that goss
{011} < 100 > and S {123} < 634 > texture compo-
nents are relatively stable, whereas variation is more likely to
occur for cube {001} < 100 > and brass {011} <
211 > texture components during the SPIF deformation.
• Texture development in this alloy occurs at high tool
diameter and vertical pitch values, where cube texture
component decreases and brass texture component in-
creases.
References
1. S. Venukumar, S. Muthukumaran, S.G. Yalagi, and S.V. Kailas, Failure
Modes and Fatigue Behavior of Conventional and Refilled Friction Stir
Spot Welds in AA 6061-T6 Sheets, Int. J. Fatigue, 2014, 61, p 93–100
2. M.W. Fu, Y.W. Tham, H.H. Hng, and K.B. Lim, The Grain Refinement
of Al-6061 via ECAE Processing: Deformation Behavior, Microstruc-
ture and Property, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, 526(1–2), p 84–92
3. V.K. Barnwal, A. Tewari, K. Narasimhan, and S.K. Mishra, Effect of
Plastic Anisotropy on Forming Behavior of AA-6061 Aluminum Alloy
Sheet, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des., 2016, 51(7), p 507–517
4. C.R. Brooks, ASM Handbook Heat Treating, 4, 2001
5. V.K. Barnwal, Forming Behavior and Microstructure Evolution during
Conventional and Incremental Sheet Forming of AA-6061 Aluminum
Alloy Sheet, Dissertation Indian Institute of Technology Bombay India,
2016
6. J. Jeswiet, F. Micari, G. Hirt, A. Bramley, J. Duflou, and J. Allwood,
Asymmetric Single Point Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal, CIRP
Ann., 2005, 54(2), p 88–114
7. A.K. Behera, R.A. De Sousa, G. Ingarao, and V. Oleksik, Single Point
Incremental Forming: An Assessment of the Progress and Technology
Trends from 2005 to 2015, J. Manuf. Process., 2017, 27, p 37–62
8. V.C. Do, Q.T. Pham, and Y.S. Kim, Identification of Forming Limit
Curve at Fracture in Incremental Sheet Forming, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol., 2017, 92(9), p 4445–4455
9. A. Mohammadi, L. Qin, H. Vanhove, M. Seefeldt, A. Van Bael, and
J.R. Duflou, Single Point Incremental Forming of an Aged AL-Cu-Mg
Alloy: influence of Pre-heat Treatment and Warm Forming, J. Mater.
Eng. Perform., 2016, 25(6), p 2478–2488
10. G. Hussain, G. Lin, N. Hayat, N.U. Dar, and A. Iqbal, New
Methodologies for the Determination of Precise Forming Limit Curve
in Single Point Incremental Forming Process, Adv. Mater. Res., 2010,
97–101, p 126–129
11. C. Raju, N Halo, and C. Sathiya Narayanan, Strain Distribution and
Failure Mode in Single Point Incremental Forming (SPIF) of Multiple
Commercially Pure Aluminum sheets, J. Manuf. Process., 2017, 30, p
328–335

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

12. W.C. Emmens and A.H. van den Boogaard, An Overview of
Stabilizing Deformation Mechanisms in Incremental Sheet Forming,
J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2009, 209(8), p 3688–3695
13. K. Jackson and J. Allwood, The Mechanics of Incremental Sheet
Forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2009, 209(3), p 1158–1174
14. K. Essa and P. Hartley, An Assessment of Various Process Strategies
for Improving Precision in Single Point Incremental Forming, Int. J.
Mater. Form., 2010, 4(4), p 401–412
15. J.J. Park and Y.H. Kim, Fundamental Studies on the Incremental Sheet
Metal Forming Technique, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2003, 140(1–3),
p 447–453
16. M. Durante, A. Formisano, and A. Langella, Observations on the
Influence of Tool-Sheet Contact Conditions on an Incremental Forming
Process, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2011, 20(6), p 941–946
17. M. Durante, A. Formisano, A. Langella, and F.M.C. Minutolo, The
Influence of Tool Rotation on an Incremental Forming Process, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 2009, 209(9), p 4621–4626
18. C. Bouffioux, P. Eyckens, C. Henrard, R. Aerens, A.V. Bael, H. Sol,
and A.M. Habraken, Identification of Material Parameters to Predict
Single Point Incremental Forming Forces, Int. J. Mater. Form., 2008,
1(S1), p 1147–1150
19. G. Ambrogio, L. Filice, and F. Gagliardi, Enhancing Incremental Sheet
Forming Performance Using High Speed, Key Eng. Mater., 2011, 473,
p 847–852
20. M. Durante, A. Formisano, and A. Langella, Comparison Between
Analytical and Experimental Roughness Values of Components
Created by Incremental Forming, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2010,
210(14), p 1934–1941
21. G. Hussain, L. Gao, N. Hayat, Z. Cui, Y.C. Pang, and N.U. Dar, Tool
and Lubrication for Negative Incremental Forming of a Commercially
Pure Titanium Sheet, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2008, 203(1–3), p
193–201
22. C. Henrard, C. Bouffioux, P. Eyckens, J. Sol, J.R. Duflou, P.V. Houtte,
A.V. Bael, L. Duchêne, and A.M. Habraken, Forming Forces in Single
Point Incremental Forming: Prediction by Finite Element Simulations,
Validation and Sensitivity, Comput. Mech., 2010, 47(5), p 573–590
23. J. Jeswiet, J.R. Duflou, and A. Szekeres, Forces in Single Point and
Two Point Incremental Forming, Adv. Mater. Res., 2005, 6–8, p 449–
456
24. A. Bansal, R. Lingam, S.K. Yadav, and N.V. Reddy, Prediction of
Forming Forces in Single Point Incremental Forming, J. Manuf.
Process., 2017, 28, p 486–493
25. R. Aerens, P. Eyckens, A.V. Bael, and J.R. Duflou, Force Prediction for
Single Point Incremental Forming Deduced from Experimental and
FEM Observations, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2009, 46(9–12), p
969–982
26. V.K. Barnwal, R. Raghavan, A. Tewari, K. Narasimhan, and S.K.
Mishra, Effect of Microstructure and Texture on Forming Behaviour of
AA-6061 Aluminium Alloy Sheet, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2017, 679, p
56–65
27. V.K. Barnwal, S. Chakrabarty, A. Tewari, K. Narasimhan, and S.K.
Mishra, Forming Behavior and Microstructural Evolution During
Single Point Incremental Forming Process of AA-6061 Aluminum
Alloy Sheet, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2018, 95(1–4), p 921–935
28. P. Shrivastava and P. Tandon, Effect of Preheated Microstructure Vis-à-
vis Process Parameters and Characterization of Orange Peel in
Incremental Forming of AA1050 Sheets, J. Mater. Eng. and Perform.,
2019, 28(5), p 2530–2542
29. D. Banabic, Formability of Metallic Materials: Plastic Anisotropy,
Formability Testing, Forming Limits, Springer, 2000
30. V.K. Barnwal, S.Y. Lee, J.H. Kim, and F. Barlat, Failure Characteristics
of Advanced High Strength Steels at Macro and Micro Scales, Mat.
Sci. and Eng. A, 2019, 754, p 411–427
31. S.K. Mishra, S.S.V. Tatiparti, S.M. Tiwari, R.S. Raghavan, J.E.
Carsley, and J. Li, Annealing Response of AA5182 Deformed in Plane
Strain and Equibiaxial Strain Paths, Philos. Mag., 2013, 93(20), p
2613–2629
32. R. Aerens, J.R. Duflou, P. Eyckens, and A.V. Bael, Advances in Force
Modelling for SPIF, Int. J. Mater. Form., 2009, 2(S1), p 25–28
33. G. Ambrogio, I. Costantino, L.D. Napoli, L. Filice, L. Fratini, and M.
Muzzupappa, Influence of Some Relevant Process Parameters on the
Dimensional Accuracy in Incremental Forming: A Numerical and
Experimental Investigation, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2004, 153–
154(1–3), p 501–507
34. E.R. Davies, Introduction to Texture Analysis. Handbook of Texture
Analysis Imperial College Press, 2008
35. R. Narayanasamy, R. Ravindran, K. Manonmani, and J. Satheesh, A
Crystallographic Texture Perspective Formability Investigation of
Aluminium 5052 Alloy Sheets at Various Annealing Temperatures,
Mater. Des., 2009, 30(5), p 1804–1817
36. Y.P. Chen, W.B. Lee, and S. To, Influence of Initial Texture on
Formability of Aluminum Sheet Metal by Crystal Plasticity FE
Simulation, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2007, 192–193, p 397–403
37. J. Hu, K. Ikeda, and T. Murakami, Effect of Texture Components on
Plastic Anisotropy and Formability of Aluminium alloy Sheets, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 1998, 73, p 49–56
38. X.Y. Wen, Z.D. Long, W.M. Yin, T. Zhai, Z. Li, and S.K. Das, Texture
Evolution in Continuous Casting Aluminum alloy AA5052 Hot Band
During Biaxial Stretching, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2007, 454, p 245–
251
39. W.C. Liu, T. Zhai, and J.G. Morris, Texture Evolution of Continuous
Cast and Direct Chill Cast AA 3003 Aluminum Alloys During Cold
Rolling, Scr. Mater., 2004, 51(2), p 83–88
40. P.V. Houtte, S. Li, M. Seefeldt, and L. Delannay, Deformation Texture
Prediction: From the Taylor Model to the Advanced Lamel Model, Int.
J. Plast., 2005, 21, p 589–624
41. O. Engler and J. Hirsch, Texture Control by Thermomechanical
Processing of AA6xxx Al-Mg-Si Sheet Alloys for Automotive
Applications—A Review, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2002, 336, p 249–262
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affilia-
tions.
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance