0
Research Papers

Improvement of Geometric Accuracy in Incremental Forming by Using a Squeezing Toolpath Strategy With Two Forming Tools

[+] Author and Article Information
Rajiv Malhotra

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Northwestern University, Evanston, IL60208malhotrarajiv2013@northwestern.edu

Jian Cao

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Northwestern University, Evanston, IL60208jcao@northwestern.edu

Feng Ren

 Ford Motor Company, Research and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn, MIfren@ford.com

Vijitha Kiridena

 Ford Motor Company, Research and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn, MIvkiriden@ford.com

Z. Cedric Xia

 Ford Motor Company, Research and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn, MIzxia@ford.com

N. V. Reddy

 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur-208016, Indianvr@iitk.ac.in

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 133(6), 061019 (Dec 15, 2011) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005179 History: Received March 28, 2011; Revised September 11, 2011; Published December 15, 2011; Online December 15, 2011

Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is plagued by an unavoidable and unintended bending in the region of the sheet between the current tool position and the fixture. The effect is a deformation of the region of the sheet in between the formed area and the fixture as well as deformation of the already formed portion of the wall, leading to significant geometric inaccuracy in SPIF. Double sided incremental forming (DSIF) uses two tools, one on each side of the sheet to form the sheet into the desired shape. This work explores the capabilities of DSIF in terms of improving the geometric accuracy as compared to SPIF by using a novel toolpath strategy in which the sheet is locally squeezed between the two tools. Experiments and simulations are performed to show that this strategy can improve the geometric accuracy of the component significantly by causing the deformation to be stabilized into a local region around the contact point of the forming tool. At the same time an examination of the forming forces indicates that after a certain amount of deformation by using this strategy a loss of contact occurs between the bottom tool and the sheet. The effects of this loss of contact of the bottom tool on the geometric accuracy and potential strategies, in order to avoid this loss of contact, are also discussed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) FLC of SPIF compared to conventional forming [1] (b) schematic showing undesirable bending in SPIF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic showing DSIF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic showing the squeezing toolpath strategy proposed in this work

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Profile of CAD model of the component to be formed

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Components formed using (a) SPIF, (b) DSIF with s = 1.0, (c) DSIF with s = 0.90, and (d) DSIF with s = 0.85

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of profile geometries from SPIF and DSIF with the designed geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

(a) SPIF, (b) DSIF with s = 1.0, (c) DSIF with s = 0.90, and (d) DSIF with s = 0.85

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Contours of Z displacement from FEA plotted on the cross section of the formed blank at forming tool tip Z displacements of (a) 5.4 mm, (b) 9.2 mm, (c) 13 mm, and (d) 18.5 mm for SPIF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Contours of Z displacement from FEA plotted on the cross section of the formed blank at forming tool tip Z displacements of (a) 5.4 mm, (b) 9.2 mm, (c) 13 mm, and (d) 18.5 mm for DSIF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Contours of equivalent stress from FEA plotted on the cross section of the formed blank at forming tool tip Z displacements of (a) 5.4 mm, (b) 9.2 mm, (c) 13 mm, and (d) 18.5 mm for SPIF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Contours of equivalent stress from FEA plotted on the cross section of the formed blank at forming tool tip Z displacements of (a) 5.4 mm, (b) 9.2 mm, (c) 13 mm, and (d) 18.5 mm for DSIF

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In