Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

DOI 10.1007/s12289-013-1143-x

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An investigation into thickness distribution in single point

incremental forming using sequential limit analysis
M. J. Mirnia & B. Mollaei Dariani & H. Vanhove &
J. R. Duflou

Received: 8 July 2013 / Accepted: 12 August 2013 / Published online: 24 August 2013
# Springer-Verlag France 2013

Abstract Single point incremental forming (SPIF), needing

no dedicated tools, is the simplest variant of incremental sheet
metal forming processes. In the present work, a simplified
model of SPIF of a truncated cone, capable of predicting the
thickness distribution, has been developed using sequential
limit analysis (SLA). The obtained results were validated
experimentally and compared with thickness predictions
obtained from an explicit shell FE model implemented in
Abaqus. It is shown that SLA is capable to solve the thickness
prediction problem more accurately and efficiently than the
equivalent FEA approach. As an application of the proposed
model, the effect of the diameter of the hemispherical tool tip
and the step down on the thickness distribution and the minimum thickness in a 50 cone is studied using SLA. By
introducing bending and stretching zones in the wall of the
cone, variations of the minimum thickness by changing the
tool diameter and the step down are discussed.
Keywords Single point incremental forming (SPIF) .
Sequential limit analysis . Thickness . Second-order cone
programming (SOCP)

Introduction
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is the simplest type
of incremental sheet forming processes in which a tool stylus
with a hemispherical head locally deforms a sheet metal blank
along a path prescribed according to a desired shape. SPIF can
M. J. Mirnia : B. Mollaei Dariani (*)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: dariani@aut.ac.ir
H. Vanhove : J. R. Duflou
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven,
Belgium

be carried out using a three-axis CNC milling machine with an

appropriate fixture to clamp the blank firmly on a backing
plate (Fig. 1). Since needing no dedicated dies and also
consuming more time than conventional forming processes,
SPIF is primarily suitable for small batch production and rapid
prototyping.
As a sheet blank is deformed incrementally in SPIF, the
numerical simulation of the process is highly time consuming.
In this regard, some simplified and fast models have been
developed to simulate the process efficiently with reasonable
accuracy [15]. Robert et al. [1] proposed a simplified contact
algorithm based on a geometrical assumption of the deformed
sheet between two different tool positions to reduce the computation cost of the numerical simulation of SPIF. The simplified model was implemented in Abaqus. A CPU time
reduction of 65 % and a good agreement of the predicted
thickness distribution with the experimental one were reported
[2]. By assuming a deformation path between two successive
intermediate shapes during incremental sheet forming,
Bambach [3] proposed a geometrical model to obtain the
thickness distribution. More accurate results than the sine
law were obtained. Since the plastic deformation is localized
around the tool, Hadoush and van den Boogaard [4] improved
the efficiency of the implicit simulation of SPIF by introducing a two domain method. In this two domain method the
sheet blank is divided into the plastically and elastically
deforming zone. The implicit simulation of SPIF became 3.6
times faster by combining adaptive refinement with the proposed method. Raithatha and Duncan [5] presented a rigidperfectly plastic model using sequential limit analysis (SLA)
to simulate SPIF of an asymmetric part. A good agreement
was observed between the predicted geometry and the experimental result and one obtained by a commercial finite element code.
In this contribution SLA is utilized to model SPIF of a
truncated cone. Unlike Raithatha and Duncan [5], the capability of SLA to predict the thickness distribution using a

470

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

According to the above mentioned work studying the effect

of the tool diameter and the size of the step down on the
thickness distribution, it seems that further study is needed
to evaluate the effect of the considered parameters on the
thickness distribution in SPIF. In this paper the suitability of
an SLA model formulation for this purpose is investigated.
Firstly, the SLA formulation is derived. The capability of SLA
to predict the thickness distribution is evaluated through comparison with results obtained from experiments and Abaqus
based FE simulation. Secondly, as an application of SLA,
thickness distribution variations in SPIF of a truncated cone
as a result of varying the tool diameter and step down size, are
studied in detail.

Sequential limit analysis

Fig. 1 The experimental SPIF platform

simplified model is discussed. SLA has also been used successfully by Hwan [6, 7] for plane strain extrusion, and by
Huh et al. [8] and Corradi and Panzeri [9] for collapse simulation of tubular parts.
Among various parameters affecting SPIF, the tool diameter and the step down, the vertical distance between successive
contours of a tool path, have significant effects on the surface
finish, formability, forming forces, geometrical accuracy,
forming time, and thickness distribution [10, 11]. Fei and
Jian-hua [12] performed a numerical simulation for two point
incremental forming (TPIF) of a truncated cone of an aluminum alloy by using the finite element package Abaqus/
Explicit. They concluded that by decreasing the step down
and increasing the tool diameter, the sheet thinning is reduced
and a more homogeneous thickness distribution is obtained.
The response surface method was utilized by Manco and
Ambrogio [13] to relate the minimum thickness and process
parameters in SPIF of a truncated cone. According to the
proposed model, the tool diameter has no significant influence
on the minimum thickness. The minimum thickness also
increases when increasing the step down. TPIF of a truncated
pyramid was studied using a finite element model established
in Abaqus software by Li et al. [14]. The authors concluded
that a spiral tool path and large tool diameter lead to a more
uniform thickness distribution and reduce the thinning. The
influence of the step down on the minimum thickness can be
neglected.

Limit analysis [15] has been effectively applied to metal

forming processes to investigate the deformation zone. The
upper-bound formulation of limit analysis considering a kinematically admissible velocity field for a deformation zone, is
more practical than the lower-bound formulation for metal
forming processes [16, 17]. The upper-bound theorem of limit
analysis can be stated as the following minimization problem
[8, 9]:
minimize
qu
Z
8
>
<
q
D
dv
V
s:t
:u 0
>
:
Kinematic boundary conditions

Where q is the upper-bound functional depending on a

kinematically admissible velocity field u
in the domain V.
The power of dissipation per unit volume D
depends on a
yield criterion and
is the strain rate field which is a function
of u
. The second term in the constraint expresses the
incompressibility condition.
Unlike [16, 17] only considering a steady state condition of
a process, in some cases, non-steady state deformations
should also be considered. These situations benefit from a
combination of a finite element method (FEM) with limit
analysis. This approach is called finite element limit analysis
[69]. A flat-shell element, which is the simplest model of
shell elements, is obtained by combining of a plate bending
element and a plane membrane element [18]. In this research,
a triangular thin plate element associated with Kirchhoff theory, like the BCIZ element, and a triangular membrane element, like the GT9 element, described in detail in [18], are
considered. So, the triangular flat-shell element has 18 degrees
of freedom (6 DOFs per node). By assuming the Von Mises
yield criterion, a rigid-perfectly plastic material, and applying
the incompressibility condition and under Kirchhoffs

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

471

The strain rate field for an element can be expressed as:

Be q e

where q e is the nodal velocity vector for an element e and B e ,

expressed in terms of area coordinates L 1 , L 2 , L 3 , is the strain
matrix for the above mentioned shell element. A common
procedure for constructing B e and q e is explained in [18].
Equation (2) can therefore be written as:
q
D 0 q Te BTe J T2 J 2 Be q e 0 k J 2 Be q e k
5
where J 2 is the Cholesky factor of Q (i.e. Q =J2T J 2). By
substituting Eq. (5) into the upper-bound functional, and using
the Gauss numerical integration scheme through thickness of
the element t e and over the area of the element A e , the
dissipated power for the discretized domain V can be written
as:
X X nga X ngt t e


 
ne

q 0
e  6
e1
j1
i1 Ae j i J 2 Be zi ; l j q
2
where ne, ngt = 3, and nga = 3 are respectively the number of
elements, the number of Gauss integration points through
thickness, and the number of Gauss integration points over
the area. B e (z i ,l j ) is the strain matrix at the Gauss points z i
and l j . i and j are the weighting factors of the Gauss points
z i and l j , respectively.
Using a transformation matrix T for each element, the
nodal velocity vector q e for an element in the local coordinate
system can be substituted by the one in the global coordinate

system Ue . Accordingly, Eq. (1) can be stated as the following

constrained minimization problem:
Fig. 2 Configuration of a 50 truncated cone predicted by a) SLA and b)
Abaqus (dt =20 mm, z=2 mm)

assumption neglecting transverse shear deformations, the

power of dissipation for an element can be written as:
r


2
2
2
2
D
p 0
x y x y xy
3
q
T Q
0

minimize
q
(
q 0

s:t

2
3
x
4 2
1

4 y 5 Q 4 2 4
3
g xy
0 0
2

3
0
05
1

A2 U Wt


X nga X ngt te

 
 7

j1
i1 Ae j i  J 2 Be zi ; l j TUe 
2
Kinematic boundary conditions

ne
e1

For SPIF, the boundary conditions mentioned in Eq. (7)

include the boundary conditions of the edges of the metal
sheet to be fixed and the movement of the hemispherical head
tool pushing the sheet to a new position along a predefined
path. Hence, these boundary conditions can be stated as
follows, respectively:
A1 U 0

where 0 is the yield strength and:

8
9

where URn are optimization variables of problem (7),

A1 Rm1 n , and A2 Rm2 n . For the mentioned shell element

with 6 DOFs per node n =6number of nodes. Wt Rm2 is a

472

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

Fig. 3 Comparison of the

thickness distribution in a 50
cone obtained by the SPIF
experiment, SLA, and Abaqus
based FEA: a) dt =10 mm,
z=0.5 mm, b) dt =20 mm,
z=2 mm

velocity vector applied by the tool on nodes (m 2 is the number

of these nodes) placed under the tool and pushed by the tool to
the new position.
The objective function of the minimization problem (7) has
been formulated as a sum of norms. Hence, it can be cast in the
form of a second-order cone programming (SOCP) [19].
SOCP has efficiently and successfully been implemented in
[5, 20, 21] to solve this kind of problems. Using auxiliary
variables t 1,t 2,,t nga ngt ne presented by t, the minimization problem (7) can be rewritten as a SOCP problem:
minimize
cT t
8

>
A1 U
0
>
<
A2 U
 W
t 
s:t
>
e
r k J 2 B e zi ; l j T U
>
:
krk k t k k 1; ; nga  ngt  ne

10

where r k are auxiliary variables and each of them is a 31

vector and cRngangtne .
Instead of solving the minimization problem (10), it is more
efficient to solve the dual optimization problem, stated as a

maximization problem [5]. Details of deriving a dual problem

from a primal one are explained in [19] and [22]. The dual
problem of (10) can be written as the following maximization
problem:

maximize W
tT
8
T
<
A0 2 0 0 AT C
s:t
0
:
kk k k k 1; ; nga  ngt  ne

11

Table 1 Comparison of the minimum thickness and the solving time for
SLA and Abaqus
Tool dia. (mm) Step down (mm) Min. thickness (mm) Solving time
(min)
Exp. Abaqus SLA Abaqus SLA
10
20

0.5
2

0.92 0.95
0.90 0.94

0.91 183
0.90 54

120
28

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

l ,,, and are dual variables or Lagrange multiplier vectors associated with problem (10). A 2, c , , and are
rearranged to A 2,C, , and to have an appropriate size.
Matrix A can be calculated by combining the two equality
constraints of (10).
In large plastic deformations, especially in metal forming
processes, finite element limit analysis should be solved sequentially [57, 9]. In each solution of finite element limit
analysis the velocity field and the new configuration of elements are obtained. By subsequently updating the boundary
conditions and applying these to the previous configuration, a
new problem should be solved. This procedure is thus called
sequential limit analysis [6].

473

Simulation of SPIF using Abaqus

An equivalent model to the one described in the previous
section has been considered to simulate SPIF by using the
Abaqus/Explicit finite element code. For this purpose the
sheet was meshed with shell elements S3R with five

Simulation of SPIF using SLA

As shown by Ma and Mo [23] and Eyckens et al. [24], a partial
model of a sheet blank with appropriate boundary conditions
on the edges can efficiently obtain satisfactory results for
axisymmetric parts like a truncated cone. In this paper, only
a 45 sector of the sheet blank is modeled rather than the
whole sheet, which would be highly time consuming for
simulating SPIF. The middle section of the sector is considered to obtain the most reliable results because of minimizing
the effects of the boundary conditions. The initial blank is
considered as a circular sector with a diameter of 138 mm. The
sheet is meshed with 3,844 triangular elements having the
average size of 0.49 mm2. It should be mentioned that in this
work, the effect of material on the thickness distribution is
neglected, since a rigid-perfectly plastic material is assumed in
the proposed sequential limit analysis (see Eq. (7)). Friction
between sheet and tool is neglected, as a modeling assumption
made by several authors [1, 3, 5]. It should be noted that this
assumption corresponds well with a lubricated contact between the tool and the sheet. Regardless of the type of lubricant, in SPIF lubrication between the tool and the sheet is of
importance for preventing a premature failure due to high
friction [25]. In this study mineral oil was used as a lubricant
and fed continuously during the process.
By solving the maximization problem (11) sequentially, the
nodal velocity vector is obtained in each solution and by using
a time increment related to the tool movement, the displacement can be achieved. Again, the maximization problem (11)
can be solved using the new configuration of elements and the
new boundary conditions associated with the tool movement.
This procedure was scripted in Matlab to produce appropriate
input for the MOSEK solver Version 6.0 [19]. By using
Abaqus, the triangular meshes can be generated and transferred to Matlab. Each simulation was carried out on an Intel
Core i7 computer with a 3 GHz CPU and 4 GB RAM running
Windows 7 as operating system.

Fig. 4 Truncated cones with 70 wall angle formed by a) dt =10 mm,

z=0.5 mm b) dt =10 mm, z=2 mm (fractured at depth of 12 mm) c)
dt =20 mm, z=0.5 mm (fractured at depth of 22 mm)

474

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

integration points through the thickness and the hemispherical

head tool was modeled as an analytical rigid shell. A time
scaling scheme in which the ratio of the internal energy to the
kinetic energy is high enough, was used to increase the velocity of the process artificially. In this way, the velocity of the
tool was increased by a factor of 1,415 as compared to the real
velocity. Here, SPIF on AA1050 sheet material has been
considered. The strain hardening behavior of the material
was described by the Swift law as in [26]:
1380:02 0:25 MPa

12

where is the plastic strain. The Poisson ratio, the Young

modulus, and the density values of the material are respectively 0.34, 70 GPa, and 2700 mkg3 .

Experimental work
SPIF of truncated cones with an upper diameter of 129 mm, a
height of 30 mm, and with different wall angles was
performed on a three-axis CNC milling machine with a rigid
clamping system (Fig. 1). SPIF of AA1050 sheets with an
initial thickness of 1.5 mm was considered. A tool with a
Fig. 5 Evolution of a) the profile
and b) the thickness distribution
during forming a 50 cone
obtained by SLA (dt =20 mm and
z=2 mm)

diameter dt was utilized, moving along a circular path at a

constant height and descending z (step down) over the
inclined wall at the end of each contour. A feed rate equal to
2,000 mm/min with no rotational speed was used. The backing plate had an aperture diameter of 131 mm. Mineral oil was
used as a lubricant. A laser line scanner mounted on a CMM
machine with an accuracy of 15 m was utilized to capture
the final part shape. After post-processing, the thickness distribution of the parts could be obtained. For all experimental
results, the thickness distribution in function of the radial
dimension was taken as an average over the entire part circumference (i.e. averaged over all possible sections).

Validation of the SLA based model

In order to validate the model constructed using SLA and FEA
on the Abaqus platform and compare them with each other,
two cones with 50 wall angle were formed experimentally
and simulated using SLA and Abaqus for two different conditions of the process parameters. Figure 2 depicts the predicted configuration of a 50 truncated cone formed with a tool
diameter of 20 mm and a step down of 2 mm for both
simulation methods. As can be seen in Fig. 3, SLA is capable

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

475

Fig. 6 Thickness distribution

obtained by using SLA for the 50
cones formed with different step
down sizes (dt =20 mm)

of predicting the thickness distribution much closer to the

experiment than the equivalent Abaqus model. It should be
taken into account that Abaqus is a robust commercial FEM
code and its predictions can be improved by incorporating
more detailed and complicated models. Here, only a comparison of two equivalent models is presented. A further comparison between the results obtained using SLA and Abaqus is
presented in Table 1. It can be concluded that it is more
efficient and accurate to utilize the model constructed by
means of SLA for the modeling options specified above. As
mentioned earlier, the effect of material behavior and friction
on the thickness distribution has not been taken into consideration by the SLA based model. Possible explanations for
predicting the thickness distribution with reasonable accuracy
without considering the mentioned effects can be stated as
follows. Imposing the through-thickness shear in the circumferential direction is the main effect of friction between the
tool and the sheet in SPIF as a local deformation process [24].
Since the influence of the through-thickness shear on the
thickness distribution is negligible, it can be assumed that
Fig. 7 Thickness distribution
obtained by using SLA for the 50
cones formed with different tool
diameters (z=2 mm)

friction plays no significant role in the thickness distribution.

On the other hand, the proposed model based on the shell
formulation cannot predict the through-thickness shear and
the effect of friction accordingly. As reported in [24], the
material model has a limited effect on the predicted in-plane
strains by FE simulation. Also, the geometrical model proposed in [3], which is based on the experimental observation
of the deformation path, shows that in this local deformation
process, the thickness distribution is more dependent on geometrical parameters than on material behavior and friction.
To further assess the capability of the presented model,
thickness distribution variations in SPIF of a truncated cone
in function of the tool diameter and the step down size, are
studied in the next section.

An application of the SLA based model

In order to study the effect of the tool diameter and the step
down on the thickness distribution using SLA, it is necessary

476

Fig. 8 Variation of the minimum thickness, obtained by SLA, in a 50

cone with changing the tool size and the step down

to ensure that all parts can be successfully formed. Figure 4

shows truncated cones with 70 wall angle formed by different
tool diameters and step down sizes. The only successful part is
the one formed by means of a tool diameter of 10 mm and a
step down of 0.5 mm (Fig. 4a). Hence, in this research, a cone
with a modest 50 wall angle is selected to study the thickness
distribution in SPIF, assuring that the different considered
parameter settings will not lead to failure.
The evolution of the profile and the thickness distribution
during SPIF of a 50 wall angle cone with a tool diameter of
20 mm and a step down of 2 mm, predicted by using SLA, is
shown in Fig. 5. As depicted in Fig. 5b, the minimum thickness decreases and its location changes continuously till a
depth of approximately 16 mm. Regarding Fig. 5a, the deformation paths of the selected points at the radii of 54 mm,
59 mm, and 61 mm tend to be curved instead of being straight,
since during forming of this zone, the wall of the cone has not
been fully formed and the deformation area under the tool is
far from the backing plate. Accordingly, it can be concluded
that zone I is affected by bending of the blank near the backing
plate, leading to less stretching in this zone. As a consequence,
this results in a larger thickness than zone II (see final profile

Fig. 9 Thickness distribution

obtained experimentally for the
50 cones formed with different
tool diameters and step down
sizes

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

of Fig. 5b). It can be seen from the final profile in Fig. 5b that
the thickness is approximately constant in zone II. During
forming of zone II, the process has reached a steady state
condition. The selected deformation paths at the radii of
43 mm and 49 mm tend to be straight. So, stretching can be
the major deformation mechanism in zone II. Zone III includes a portion of the sheet under the tool and a portion with
a rigid movement. The rigid movement of the sheet in zone III
is obvious from the straight deformation path of a point at the
radius of 11 mm.
The effect of the step down on the thickness distribution in
a truncated cone with 50 wall angle, formed with a tool
diameter of 20 mm, is shown in Fig. 6. As the step down
increases, more bending occurs in zone I, causing reduced
thinning in this zone. On the other hand, with an increase of
the step down stretching in zone II increases, leading to a
decrease in the thickness in this zone. For the step down sizes
lower than 2 mm, this reduction of the thickness in zone II has
no effect on the minimum thickness. Therefore, it can be
stated that increasing the step down up to 2 mm improves
the minimum thickness. By increasing the step down more,
the minimum thickness decreases significantly as can be seen
in Fig. 6. It can also be seen that the deformation in zone III
becomes smaller with decreasing step down. In practice, using
a large step down causes high forming forces and a poor
surface quality. Large step downs have been considered here
only for highlighting their effect on the thickness distribution.
In this study, step down sizes lower than 2 mm are considered
hereafter.
Figure 7 demonstrates the effect of the tool diameter on the
thickness distribution predicted by SLA. The minimum thickness decreases as the tool diameter increases since stretching
in zone II becomes higher. For further investigations, the
variation of the minimum thickness in function of the tool
diameter and the step down, predicted by SLA, is presented in
Fig. 8. It should be noted that within the considered range of

Int J Mater Form (2014) 7:469477

the step down, the minimum thickness increases with increasing step down for all tool sizes, while the minimum thickness
may decrease with a further increase of the step down (Fig. 6).
For sake of completeness, four experimental tests were
performed to validate the above mentioned results obtained
by SLA. As Fig. 9 shows the thickness distributions obtained
in these experiments, it is clear that the trend of the minimum
thickness with variation in the tool and the step down size
predicted by SLA is the same as found experimentally.

Conclusions
In this paper, a simplified model of SPIF was developed using
sequential limit analysis (SLA). In this regard, some comparisons were made between the presented model and the FE
based model and the experiment to verify the capability of
SLA based model. For further assessment, an investigation
was carried out to determine the effect of the tool diameter and
step down on the thickness distribution in single point incremental forming (SPIF). A truncated cone with 50 wall angle
was considered as test geometry. Based on the results mentioned above, the following conclusions can be drawn:
&
&
&
&

&
&

The thickness distribution and the minimum thickness of the

truncated cone can be predicted with reasonable accuracy in
less time using SLA than Abaqus for the equivalent model.
The trend of the minimum thickness in function of the tool
and the step down size as predicted by SLA is in a good
agreement with results obtained experimentally.
As discussed in this paper, the effect of friction on the
thickness distribution can be neglected.
Using the predicted deformation path of the selected
points on the sheet, the wall of the cone can be divided
into two zones. The deformation in zone I, near the backing plate, is affected by bending and in zone II is governed
by stretching.
By increasing the tool diameter, stretching in zone II increases and as a result, the minimum thickness decreases.
By increasing the step down up to 2 mm, the bending effect
in zone I increases leading to an increase in the minimum
thickness. More increases in the step down may decrease
the minimum thickness due to severe stretching in zone II.

References
1. Robert C, Ben Ayed L, Delamzire A, Dal Santo P, Batoz JL (2010)
Development of A Simplified Approach of Contact For Incremental
Sheet Forming. Int J Mater Form 3(suppl 1):987990
2. Robert C, Ben Ayed L, Delamzire A, Dal Santo P, Batoz JL (2009)
On a Simplified Model for the Tool and the Sheet Contact Conditions
for the SPIF Process Simulation. Key Eng Mater 410411:373379

477
3. Bambach M (2010) A geometrical model of the kinematics of incremental sheet forming for the prediction of membrane strains and
sheet thickness. J Mater Process Technol 210:15621573
4. Hadoush A, van den Boogaard AH (2012) Efficient implicit simulation of incremental sheet forming. Int J Numer Methods Eng 90:597
612
5. Raithatha A, Duncan SR (2009) Rigid plastic model of incremental
sheet deformation using second-order cone programming. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 78:955979
6. Hwan CL (1997) An upper bound finite element procedure for
solving large plane strain deformation. Int J Numer Methods Eng
40:19091922
7. Hwan CL (1997) Plane strain extrusion by sequential limit analysis.
Int J Mech Sci 39:807817
8. Huh H, Kim KP, Kim HS (2001) Collapse simulation of tubular
structures using a finite element limit analysis approach and shell
elements. Int J Mech Sci 43:21712187
9. Corradi L, Panzeri N (2004) A triangular finite element for sequential
limit analysis of shells. Adv Eng Softw 35:633643
10. Jeswiet J, Micari F, Hirt G, Bramley A, Duflou J, Allwood J (2005)
Asymmetric Single Point Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal. CIRP
Ann 54:88114
11. Echrif SBM, Hrairi M (2011) Research and Progress in Incremental
Sheet Forming Processes. Mater Manuf Processes 26:14041414
12. Fei H, Jian-hua M (2008) Numerical simulation and experimental
investigation of incremental sheet forming process. J Cent S Univ
Technol 15:581587
13. Manco GL, Ambrogio G (2010) Influence of thickness on formability in 6082-T6. Int J Mater Form 3(suppl 1):983986
14. Li J, Li C, Zhou T (2012) Thickness distribution and mechanical
property of sheet metal incremental forming based on numerical
simulation. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 22:s54s60
15. Jhonson W, Mellor PB (1983) Engineering plasticity. Ellis Horwood,
UK
16. Mirnia MJ, Mollaei Dariani B (2012) Analysis of incremental sheet
metal forming using the upper-bound approach. Proc Inst Mech Eng
B: J Eng Manuf 226:13091320
17. Abrinia A, Ghorbani M (2012) Theoretical and Experimental Analyses for the Forward Extrusion of Nonsymmetric Sections. Mater
Manuf Processes 27:420429
18. Long YQ, Cen S, Long ZF (2009) Advanced finite element method
in structural engineering. Springer, Berlin
19. MOSEK ApS (2012) The MOSEK optimization toolbox for Matlab
manual, Version 6.0 (Revision 135). MOSEK ApS, Denmark
20. Makrodimopoulos A, Martin CM (2007) Upper bound limit analysis
using simplex strain elements and second-order cone programming.
Int J Numer Anal MethodsGeomech 31:835865
21. Le CV, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Dang H (2010) Upper and lower
bound limit analysis of plates using FEM and second-order cone
programming. Comput Struct 88:6573
22. Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex optimization. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
23. Ma LW, Mo JH (2008) Three-dimensional finite element method
simulation of sheet metal single-point incremental forming and the
deformation pattern analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng B: J Eng Manuf
222:373380
24. Eyckens P, Belkassem B, Henrard C, Gu J, Sol H, Habraken AM,
Duflou JR, Van Bael A, Van Houtte P (2011) Strain evolution in the
single point incremental forming process: digital image correlation
measurement and finite element prediction. Int J Mater Form 4:5571
25. Duflou J, Tunckol Y, Szekeres A, Vanherck P (2007) Experimental
study on force measurements for single point incremental forming. J
Mater Process Technol 189:6572
26. Bambach M (2008) Process strategies and modeling approaches for
asymmetric incremental sheet forming. Umformtechnische Schriften
Band 139. Shaker Verlag, Aachen