Geometry Compensation Methods for Increasing the Accuracy of the SPIF Process

Abstract:

Despite years of supporting research, commercial use of the Single Point Incremental Forming process remains very limited. The promised flexibility and lack of specific tooling is contradicted by its highly complex deformation mechanics, resulting in a process that is easy to implement but where workpiece accuracy is very difficult to control. This paper looks at geometry compensation as a viable control strategy to increase the accuracy of produced workpieces. The input geometry of the process can be compensated using knowledge about the deformations occurring during production. The deviations between the nominal CAD geometry and the actual produced geometry can be calculated in a variety of different ways, thus directly influencing the compensation. Two different alignment methods and three deviation calculation methods are explained in detail. Six combined deviation calculation methods are used to generate compensated inputs, which are experimentally produced and compared to the uncompensated part. All different methods are able to noticeably improve the accuracy, with the production alignment and closest point deviation calculation achieving the best results

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 883)
• Pages: 217-224
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.883.217
• Online since: April 2021
• Authors: Yannick Carette*, Marthe Vanhulst, Joost R. Duflou
• Keywords: Accuracy, Incremental Sheet Forming, Process Control

References

[1] J. R. Duflou, A. Habraken, J. Cao, R. Malhotra, M. Bambach, D. Adams, H. Vanhove, A. Mohammaci and J. Jeswiet, Single point incremental forming: state-of-the-art and prospects, International Journal of Material Forming 11(6) (2018) 743-773.

DOI: 10.1007/s12289-017-1387-y

[2] M. Fawad and M. Bambach, Dominant deformation mechanisms in single point incremental forming (SPIF) and their effect on geometrical accuracy, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 136 (2018) 279-292.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.12.053

[3] H. Lu, H. Liu and C. Wang, Review on strategies for geometric accuracy improvement in incremental sheet forming, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 102(9-12) (2019) 3381-3417.

DOI: 10.1007/s00170-019-03348-3

[4] G. Hussain, G. Lin and N. Hayat, Improving profile accuracy in SPIF process through statistical optimization of forming parameters, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25(1) (2011) 177–182.

DOI: 10.1007/s12206-010-1018-8

[5] J. R. Duflou, J. Verbert, B. Belkassem, J. Gu, H. Sol, C. Henrard and A. M. Habraken, Process window enhancement for single point incremental forming through multi-step toolpaths, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology. 57 (2008) 253-256.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.030

[6] G. Hirt, J. Ames, M. Bambach and R. Kopp, Forming strategies and Process Modelling for CNC Incremental Sheet Forming 53(1) (2004), p.203–206, (2004).

DOI: 10.1016/s0007-8506(07)60679-9

[7] C. Bonnardot, P. Malécot and S. Thibaud, Shape accuracy improvement obtained by µ-SPIF by tool path compensation. Procedia Manufacturing 47 (2020) 1399–1402.

DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.293

[8] A. K. Behera, J. Verbert, B. Lauwers and J. R. Duflou, Tool path compensation strategies for single point incremental sheet forming using multivariate adaptive regression splines, CAD Computer Aided Design 45(3) (2013) 575–590.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cad.2012.10.045

[9] Y. Carette, S. Vancleef, H. Vanhove, J. Vander Sloten and J. R. Duflou, Non-rigid Registration: A Powerful Morphing Tool in SPIF Process Planning, Procedia Engineering 183 (2017) 155-160.

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.056

[10] H. Vanhove, Y. Carette, S. Vancleef, and J. R. Duflou, Production of thin shell clavicle implants through single point incremental forming, Procedia Engineering 183 (2017) 174-179.

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.058