Incremental Sheet Metal Forming: A Review

N Venkata Reddy
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kanpur, India. nvr@iitk.ac.in
Jian Cao
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL, 60208 USA

Abstract
Incremental sheet metal forming has demonstrated its great potential to form complex three-dimensional parts without
using a matching die. The process locally deforms sheet metal using a moving tool head achieving higher forming limits
than those of conventional sheet metal stamping process. The die-less nature in incremental forming provides a
competitive alternative for economically and effectively fabricating low-volume functional sheet products. Potential
application areas include aerospace industries, customized products in biomedical applications and prototyping in the
automotive industry. Here, in this paper, a review of the current state-of-the-art technologies and the potential of
incremental sheet metal forming are presented in brief.


Introduction and Review
Conventional sheet metal forming operations require
component specific and costly tooling and their design
and fabrication add to the lead-time. Incremental forming
is one of the technologies that have emerged as an
alternative to conventional sheet metal forming processes
for mass customization. Incremental forming (IF) is
commonly regarded as a die-less forming process which
can form complex three-dimensional parts using relatively
simple tools. It has received increasing attention from the
engineering community due to its flexibility and low cost.
This unique combination enables the rapid prototyping of
functional sheet metal parts before mass production. In
addition, it offers a valid manufacturing process to match
the need of mass customization. Incremental forming has
found numerous applications in automobile 1 and
aerospace industries 2 and in biomedical applications,
such as customized ankle support 3, even for processing
recycling panels as demonstrated in 4 and 5.
Existing experimental configurations for incremental
forming can be broadly classified into two categories: with
and without die, each having two variations, i.e., negative
and positive incremental forming [6]. These four
configurations are shown in Fig. 1.
Negative die-less incremental forming, also known as
single point incremental forming (SPIF), is the earliest
form of incremental forming. Positive die-less incremental
forming is also referred to as two point incremental sheet
forming (TPIF). Another setup usable is a type of negative
incremental forming in which a partial die is used on one
side of the sheet metal. Most of the above configurations
were realized by attaching the required tools on stand
alone NC machines. Modifications of the process setup
have been made by various research groups, for
example, to form doubly curved sheet metal by having a
movable punch set in Yoon and Yang 7, or to have a
specialized machine for SPIF as in [8] and 9. They
developed an expression for predicting the curvature
using process variables such as the distance between
supporting punches in pairs and the forming depth of the
centre punch and the same is fine tuned using the
experimental results and the FEM simulation results
containing spring back information. Emmens et al. 10
have demonstrated the use of water jet as a forming tool
along with the dies. They brought out a new variation as
the water jet system is a force controlled operation
whereas the NC tool system used in IF is a displacement
controlled system.
A recent comprehensive review article on incremental
forming can be found in 2005s article by J eswiet et al.
[1]. Based on the work presented in literatures, they
provided many useful observations and guidelines for
incremental forming as summarized below.

Formability in SPIF increases with decrease in
tool size as well as incremental step down.
Anisotropy has an influence upon formability, with
greater formability being achieved with smaller
diameter tools in the transverse direction.
Formability decreases with sheet thickness.
Large incremental step down increases the
roughness.
Increase in the incremental step down and tool
size increase forming forces.
There is a limitation on the maximum draw angle
that can be formed in one pass hence, multiple
pass methodologies are preferred for forming
large angle components.
Spiral (helical) tool path is preferred over contour
one but the tool path generation is difficult.


This paper will mainly focus on the work published after
the above mentioned review paper [1] in the areas of
formability prediction, process planning, tool path
generation and new process development.













Figure 1: Incremental Forming Process Configurations.
(a) Negative die-less forming, also known as single point
incremental forming (SPIF) (b) Positive die-less forming,
also known as two point incremental forming (TPIF) (c)
Negative with-die forming; (d) Positive with-die forming.

Formability Study: Since the 2005 review article, Ham
and J eswiet [11] [12] performed an experimental
investigation on the effects of process variables on
formability of various aluminium alloys in a systematic
way using two factorial designs of experiments. They
used the maximum formable angle as the measure of
formability. Process variables studied included feed rate,
spindle rotation speed, step size and forming angle. It
was reported that faster spindle rotation speed improves
formability and step size has little effect on the maximum
forming angle, whereas the material thickness, tool size
and the interaction between material thickness and tool
size have a considerable influence on maximum forming
angle. Results also indicated that material and shape
have the more affect on maximum formable angle.
Real-time prediction of potential failure is useful for
process planning. Ambrogio et al. [13] and Filice et al.
[14] proposed to use the force gradient after reaching the
maximum level as an indication for material failure
prediction by measuring the force variation while forming
trucated cones. Szekeres et al. [15] observed the similar
force trends while forming cone but not for pyramid
shape, hence, they indicated that tool force measurement
may not be very reliable.

The ultimate goal is to accurately predict formability to
assist better design of tool path and part geometry. It has
been well accepted that conventional forming limits are
not suitable for incremental forming 2 even when path
dependency of strain paths are considered [16]. Allwood
et al. [17] conducted experiments to explain the higher
forming limits observed in incremental forming. Their
observations indicate that an appreciable amount of
through thickness shear occurs during incremental
forming. They reasoned that when through thickness
shear is present, the tensile stresses responsible for
fracture, are reduced resulting in greater forming limits. It
was observed that in a plane perpendicular to the tool
path the deformation of the sheet is mainly by stretching
and bending. In a plane parallel to the tool path,
significant through thickness shear was observed.
Emmens et al. [18] have made an attempt to understand
the nature of deformation in incremental forming. They
said that since bending is present in incremental forming,
shear mode of deformation has to be present. Emmens
and Boogaard 19 proposed that bending under tension
(simultaneous stretching and bending) as the main
reason for the increase in formability during incremental
forming. The findings are important to the understanding
of failure mechanism in incremental forming. The
prediction accuracy based on the above observations
remains to be shown.

The process parameters utilized in incremental forming,
for example, incremental step size, tool diameter, etc.
have proved to have a direct impact on the feasibility of
formed part. Quantitative analysis of these parameters
related to sheet thickness or sheet material properties are
important to engineers. Allwood et al. 9 carried out a very
structured search of incremental forming applications for
identifying the process window. Silva et al. 20 21
proposed a membrane analysis considering contact




(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
frictional forces to determine state of stress and strain in
the localized deformation zone around the tool. They
assumed the deformation as plane strain stretching and
sheet material as rigid plastic following the Tresca yield
criterion. It was proposed that cracks open up during
forming due to meridional tensile stresses and therefore,
a ductile fracture criterion ( ) was used in their
analysis. They concluded from their analysis that
formability is expected to decrease when blank thickness
decreases or tool diameter increases. Dejardin et al. [22]
[23] formed small parts using 1 mm diameter
hemispherical headed tool and 0.24 mm thickness CuNiP
sheet material. They used blank holder and studied its
influence on deformed geometry and sheet thickness in
addition to estimating the minimum blank holding
pressure required using FEA to avoid the material flow.
Tool path generation has a direct impact on the
dimensional accuracy, surface finish, formability,
thickness variation and processing time. Kim and Yang
[24] reported that parts formed using a spiral tool path
had a more uniform thickness distribution compared to
those formed using a conventional contour tool path.
They proposed a double/multiple pass strategy where an
intermediate shape(s) is formed by generating the tool
paths in such a way that the thickness of the final
geometry is more uniform. The shape error can be further
reduced if a C2 continuity of velocity in the trajectory is
maintained [25]. In addition, the conventional/contour
strategy is reported better for dimensional accuracy as
compared to radial strategies [26]; better accuracy was
achieved when the forming area is very close to the
clamping fixture [27]; tool path planning was further
assisted by finite element method [28] 29 and on-line
geometry measurement system [30] [31]to achieve a
better accuracy. Although the milling module in
commercial CAD/CAM package has been used to
generate tool path for incremental forming [32], the use of
milling modules to generate tool paths may not represent
the requirements of incremental forming realistically
enough [31]. The STL files have an inherent drawback
referred as chordal errors if z-constant profile tool paths
are generated [33]. Attanasio et al. 34 investigated two
types of tool paths, one with a constant step depth and
the other with a constant scallop height. It was reported
that the surface quality of the formed component
improved by decreasing the values of step depth.
Improvements to the existing incremental forming
processes have been researched to enhance the process
capability. Duflou et al. [35] 36 have demonstrated that
the use of local dynamic heating just ahead of tool path
reduces the forming forces and enhances the geometrical
accuracy and formability of the material. Tanaka et al.
[37] have used a backup tool on the other side of the tool
and it is in contact with the work piece intermittently
(following sinusoidal path) during SPIF. They carried out
the finite element analysis and demonstrated that this
strategy reduces the residual stress gradients and in turn
enhances the component accuracy. Schafer and Schraft
[38] have developed different type of hammer tools and
used them along with the robots to form the sheet metal
components. Meier et al. [39] have used two moving tools
with some offset with the help of two robots (Master and
slave) to form the simple geometrical shapes. Skjoedt et
al. 40 have proposed a multistage strategy to form 90
degree cups. Martins et al. 41 have demonstrated the
application of incremental forming in forming PVC sheets.
Silva et al. 41 have investigated the usability of SPIF in
forming tailor made blanks. Micari et al. [31] discussed
the problems and issues in incremental forming and tried
to delineate the direction that research in incremental
forming should take in the future. They mentioned that the
two main issues with incremental forming today are, high
forming time and inadequate geometrical accuracy. They
illustrated two methods that can be used for detection of
errors in formed components. The first one is out of
machine measurement involving the usage of laser
scanners and CMM. This kind of measurement takes into
account both local and global spring back of the formed
component. Another kind is On-machine measurement,
involving the use of cameras on the spindle of the forming
tool so that adaptive adjustment of the tool path can be
made as and when errors are detected during the forming
process. The use of a backing tool made of rubber has
been suggested for use as a supporting tool during
forming. However, this will increase the tooling costs. The
use of counter pressure has also been contemplated but
there is always the risk that excessive counter pressure
will cause unwanted bulging of the blank. Multi-point
incremental forming has been mentioned as a good
means to prevent spring back.

Critical literature review presented above indicates that
the major hurdles have to be overcome before this
process can be widely adopted are

the ability to design a desired tool path based on
the required final configuration
the ability to produce features on both sides of
the original sheet plane, which is particularly
important for auto industry
the ability to produce parts with a desired surface
finish

Authors of the present paper and their co-workers [43-
49] carried out some work in the above mentioned areas
of incremental forming and summary of their work is
presented below. They developed and implemented a
platform-independent generalized methodology for the
generation of contour and helical tool paths, for an
arbitrary component formable by SPIF. The constraints
on the tool path are that the formed component should
have required geometrical accuracy and surface finish.
Adaptive slicing techniques used in layered
manufacturing [50] have been modified and used for this
purpose. The developed methodology has been shown to
be usable for axi-symmetric as well as asymmetric
components that can be formed by SPIF within the same
setup. They have developed the tool paths by
compensating for its size as well as geometry. The tool
paths generated have been used to form components
whose geometry conforms closely to the geometry of the
desired component. They have proposed the usage of
two tools on both sides of the sheet and named it as
Double-Sided Incremental Forming (DSIF) and
implemented with certain limitations and preliminary
results are quite encouraging. Preliminary work carried
out by them indicated that DSIF can become a valuable
method for dieless forming of complex shapes. It can
form parts with double-curvature on both sides of the
initial sheet plane without flipping the sheet. This will then
eliminate the alignment problem when tool has to be
reset, and therefore, increase the dimensional accuracy
and reduce processing time. It was also shown that the
tool gap has a direct impact on dimensional accuracy and
surface finish. Predictions of an analytical model
developed by them based on membrane analysis to study
the size effects for process planning for spherical part
confirms observations noticed by experimentalists, i.e.,
formability increases as tool size decreases, as thickness
increases, as step size decreases. Furthermore, the
analytical model provides quantitative measurements on
how exactly the influence of each process parameter on
the formability. Normalized size effect analysis can
provide directions of future experiments to transfer the
incremental forming practice from art to science. Further
research work is in progress in various aspects of single
point as well as double sided incremental forming.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to acknowledge Indo-US Science
and Technology Forum, Department of Science and
Technology, New Delhi and NSF of USA for the support
to carry out the present work.
REFERENCES

1. Governale, A., Franco, A.L., Panzeca, A., Frantini, L.,
Micari, F.: Incremental forming process for the
accomplishment of automotive details. Key
Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 559-566.
2. J eswiet, J ., Micari, F., Hirt, G., Bramley, A., Duflou,
A., Allwood, J .: Asymmetric single point incremental
forming of sheet metal. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2005, 54(2), 623-649.
3. Ambrogio, G., De Napoli, L., Filice, L., Gagliardi, F.,
Muzzupappa, M.: Application of incremental forming
process for high customized medical product
manufacturing. J Mater Process Tech, 2005, 162-163,
156-162.
4. J ackson, K.P., Allwood, J .M., Landert, M.:
Incremental forming of sandwich panels. Key
Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 591-598.
5. Takano, H., Kitazawa, K., Goto, T.: Incremental
forming of nonuniform sheet metal: Possibility of cold
rececling process of sheet metal waste. Int J Mach
Tool Manufact, 2008, 48, 477-482.
6. Allwood, J.M., Bramley, A.N., Ridgman, T.W.,
Mileham, A.R.: A novel method for the rapid
production of inexpensive dies and moulds with
surfaces made by incremental sheet forming.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Part B- Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 2006, 220(2), 323-327.
7. Yoon, S.J . and Yang, D.Y.: Investigation into a new
incremental forming process using and adjustable
punch set for the manufacture of a doubly curved sheet
metal. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Part B- Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 2001, 215(7), 991-1004.
8. Amino, H., Lu, Y., Ozawa, S., Fukuda, K., Maki, T.:
Dieless NC forming of automotive service panels.
Proceedings of the Conference on Advanced
Techniques of Plasticity, 2002, 10151020.
9. Allwood, J .M., Houghton, N.E., J ackson, K.P.: The
design of an incremental sheet forming machine.
Advanced Materials Research, 2005, 6-8, 471-478.
10. Emmens, W.C.: Detailed incremental forming of steel
beverage cans by a high-pressure water jet. Key
Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 567-574.
11. Ham, M., J eswiet, J .: Single point incremental forming
and the forming criteria for AA3003. CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology, 2006, 55(1), 241-244.
12. Ham, M., J eswiet, J .: Single point incremental forming
limits using a box-behnken design of experiment. Key
Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 629-636.
13. Ambrogio, G., Duflou, J., Filice, L., Aerens, R.: Some
considerations on force trends in incremental forming
of different materials. Proceeding of 10
th
ESAFORM,
2007, 193-198.
14. Filice, L., Ambrogio, G., Micari, F.: On-line control of
single point incremental forming operations though
punch force monitoring. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2006, 55(1), 245-248.
15. Szekeres, A., Ham, M., J eswiet, J .: Force
measurement in pyramid shaped parts with a spindle
mounted force sensor. Key Engineering Materials,
2007, 344, 551-558.
16. Bambach, M., Todorova, M., Hirt, G.: Experimental
and numerical analysis of forming limits in CNC
incremental sheet forming. Key Engineering
Materials, 2007, 344, 511-518.
17. Allwood, J.M., Shouler, D.R., Tekkaya, A.E.: The
increased forming limits of incremental sheet forming
processes. Key Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 621-
628.
18. Emmens, W.C., Van den Boogaard, A.H.: Strain in
shear and material behaviour in incremental forming.
Key Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 519-526.
19. Emmens, W.C., van den Boogaard, A.H.: Tensile tests
with bending: a mechanism for incremental forming.
Proceeding of 11
th
ESAFORM, 2008.
20. Silva, M.B., Skjoedt, M., Martins, P.A.F, Bay, N.:
Revisiting the fundamentals of single point
incremental forming by means of membrane analysis.
Int J Mach Tool Manufact, 2008, 48, 73-83.
21. Silva, M.B, Skjoedt, M., Atkins, A.G., Bay, N.,
Martins, P.A.F.: Single-point incremental forming and
formability-failure diagrams. J Strain Analysis, 2008,
43, 15-35.
22. Dejardin, S., Thibaud, S., Gelin, J.C.: Experimental
and numerical investigations in single point
incremental sheet forming for micro parts. Proceeding
of 10
th
ESAFORM, 2007, 145-150.
23. Dejardin, S., Thibaud, S., Gelin, J.C.: Experimental
and numerical investigations in single point
incremental sheet forming. Proceeding of The 9
th

NUMIFORM, 2007, 889-894.
24. Kim, T.J ., Yang, D.Y.: Improvement of formability
for the incremental sheet metal forming process.
International J ournal of Mechanical Sciences, 2000,
42(7), 1271-1286.
25. Bambach, M., Hirt, G.: Error analysis in explicit finite
element analysis of incremental sheet forming.
Proceeding of the 9
th
NUMIFORM, 2007, 859-864.
26. Bambach, M., Ames, J ., Azaouzi, M., Campagne, L.,
Hirt, G., Batoz, J .L.: Initial experimental and
numerical investigations into a class of new strategies
for single point incremental sheet forming (SPIF).
Proceeding of 8
th
ESAFORM Conference on Material
Forming, 2005, 671-674.
27. Kopac, J ., Kampus, Z.: Incremental sheet metal
forming on CNC milling machine-tool. J Mater
Process Tech, 2005, 162-163, 622-628.
28. Bambach, M., Hirt, G., Ames, J .: Quantitative
validation of FEM simulations for incremental sheet
forming using optical deformation measurement.
Advanced Materials Research, 2005, 6-8, 509-516.
29. Yamashita, M., Gotoh, M., Atsumi, S.Y.: Numerical
simulation of incremental forming of sheet metal. J
Mater Process Tech, 2008, 199(1-3), 163-172.
30. Ambrogio, G., Filice, L., De Napoli, L., Muzzupappa,
M.: A simple approach for reducing profile diverting
in a single point incremental forming process.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Part B- Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 2005, 219(11), 823-830.
31. Micari, F., Ambrogio, G. and Filice, L.: Shape and
dimensional accuracy in single point incremental
forming: state of the art and future trends. J Mater
Process Tech, 2007, 191, 390-395.
32. Skjoedt, M., Hancock, M.H. and Bay, N., Creating
helical tool paths for single point incremental forming.
Key Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 583-590.
33. Verbert, J ., Duflou, J .R., Lauwers, B.: Feature based
approach for increasing the accuracy of the SPIF
process. Key Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 527-
534.
34. Attanasio, A., Ceretti, E., Giardini, C., Mazzoni, L.:
Asymmetric two points incremental forming:
Improving surface quality and geometric accuracy by
tool path optimization. J Mater Process Tech, 2008,
197(1-3), 59-67.
35. Duflou, J.R., Callebaut, B., Verbert, J ., De
Baerdemaeker, H.: Laser assisted incremental
forming: formability and accuracy improvement.
CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2007, 56(1),
273-276.
36. Duflou, J.R., Callebaut, B., Verbert, J ., De
Baerdemaeker, H.: Improved SPIF performance
through dynamic local heating. Int J Mach Tool
Manufact, 2008, 48, 543-549.
37. Tanaka, S., Nakamura, T., Hayakawa, K, Nakamura,
H., Motomura, K.: Residual stress in sheet metal parts
made by incremental forming process. Proceeding of
the 9
th
NUMIFORM, 2007, 775-780.
38. Schafer, T.,Schraft. R.D.: Incremental sheet metal
forming by industrial robots. Rapid Prototyping
J ournal, 2005, 11(5), 278-286.
39. Meier, H., Smukala, V., Dewald, O., Zhang, J .: Two
point incremental forming with two moving forming
tools. Key Engineering Materials, 2007, 344, 599-605.
40. Skjoedt, M., Bay, N., Endelt, B., Ingarao, G.: Multi
stage strategies for single point incremental forming of
a cup. Proceeding of 11
th
ESAFORM, 2008.
41. Franzen, V., Kwiatkowski, L, Martins, P.A.F.,
Tekkaya, A.E.: Single point incremental forming of
pvc. J Mater Process Tech, 2008, Accepted.
42. Silva, M.B., Skjoedt, M., Vilaca, P., Bay, N., Martins,
P.A.F.: Single point incremental forming of tailored
blanks produced by friction stir welding. J Mater
Process Tech, 2008,
43. Huang, Y., Cao, J ., Smith, S., Woody, B., Ziegert, J .
and Li, M, Experimental and Numerical Investigation
of Forming Limits in Incremental Forming of a
Conical Cup,Transaction of the North American
Manufacturing Research Institution of SME, 2008,
Vol. 38, pp.389-396.
44. Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Cao, J . and Reddy, N.V.,
Experimental Study on a New Method of Double Side
Incremental Forming, Proceedings of the 2008
International Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Conference, MSEC2008, October 7-10, 2008,
Evanston, Illinois, USA.
45. Huang, Y., Cao, J ., Smith, S., Woody, B., Ziegert, J .
and Li, M., Studies of Size Effect on the Formability
of a Domed Part in Incremental Forming, Proceedings
of the 2008 International Manufacturing Science and
Engineering Conference, MSEC2008, October 7-10,
2008, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
46. Malhotra, R., Reddy, N.V. and Cao, J. (2008) ?A
Generic Tool Path Generation Methodology for
Incremental Forming?, Proceedings of the 2008
International Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Conference, MSEC2008, October 7-10, 2008,
Evanston, Illinois, USA.
47. Cao, J ., Huang, Y., Reddy, N. V., Malhotra, R.,
Wang, Y., Incremental Sheet Metal Forming:
Advances and Challenges, Proceedings of ICTP,
Korea, September 2008.
48. Singh, S., Reddy, N.V., Incremental Sheet forming: A
review, 3
rd
Mechanical National Conference (NCME),
Thapar University, Nov 14-15, 2008.
49. Malhotra, R., Reddy, N.V., Agarwal, A., Automatic
path generation for incremental sheet metal forming,
Proceeding of the International Symposium,
December 17-18, 2007, J amshedpur, 97-102.
50. Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V., Dhande, S.G., Slicing
Procedures in Layered Manufacturing A Review,
Rapid Prototyping J ournal, 2003, 274-288.