Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece

Over time the process of incremental deformation Die-less has been developed in many ways to meet the needs of flexible production with no investment in tooling and low production costs. Two of their configurations are the SPIF (Single point incremental forming) and DPIF (Double point Incremental fo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Adrian José Benitez Lozano, Gabriel Jaime Páramo Bermudez, Frank Alexander Bustamante Correa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universidad de la Costa 2015-07-01
Series:Inge-Cuc
Subjects:
Online Access:http://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/index.php/ingecuc/article/view/544
id doaj-33c6b97f575e41969d8200187c5c3dda
record_format Article
spelling doaj-33c6b97f575e41969d8200187c5c3dda2020-11-24T23:39:14ZengUniversidad de la CostaInge-Cuc0122-65172382-47002015-07-01112687310.17981/ingecuc.11.2.2015.07Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpieceAdrian José Benitez Lozano0Gabriel Jaime Páramo Bermudez1Frank Alexander Bustamante Correa2 University Research Group for Production Technologies University Research Group for Production Technologies University Research Group for Production TechnologiesOver time the process of incremental deformation Die-less has been developed in many ways to meet the needs of flexible production with no investment in tooling and low production costs. Two of their configurations are the SPIF (Single point incremental forming) and DPIF (Double point Incremental forming) technique. The aim of this study is to compare both techniques with the purpose of exposing their advantages and disadvantages in the production of industrial parts, as well as to inform about Die-less as an alternative manufacturing process. Experiments with the exhaust pipe cover of a vehicle are performed, the main process parameters are described, and formed workpieces without evidence of defects are achieved. Significant differences between the two techniques in terms of production times and accuracy to the original model are also detected. Finally, it is suggested when is more convenient to use each of these.http://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/index.php/ingecuc/article/view/544Incremental Sheet FormingForming DieComputerized Numerical Control (CNC)Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)Computer Aided Design (CAD) Die-less SPIF-DPIFAluminum Alloy 1100
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Adrian José Benitez Lozano
Gabriel Jaime Páramo Bermudez
Frank Alexander Bustamante Correa
spellingShingle Adrian José Benitez Lozano
Gabriel Jaime Páramo Bermudez
Frank Alexander Bustamante Correa
Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
Inge-Cuc
Incremental Sheet Forming
Forming Die
Computerized Numerical Control (CNC)
Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)
Computer Aided Design (CAD) Die-less SPIF-DPIF
Aluminum Alloy 1100
author_facet Adrian José Benitez Lozano
Gabriel Jaime Páramo Bermudez
Frank Alexander Bustamante Correa
author_sort Adrian José Benitez Lozano
title Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
title_short Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
title_full Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
title_fullStr Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis between the SPIF and DPIF variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
title_sort comparative analysis between the spif and dpif variants for die-less forming process for an automotive workpiece
publisher Universidad de la Costa
series Inge-Cuc
issn 0122-6517
2382-4700
publishDate 2015-07-01
description Over time the process of incremental deformation Die-less has been developed in many ways to meet the needs of flexible production with no investment in tooling and low production costs. Two of their configurations are the SPIF (Single point incremental forming) and DPIF (Double point Incremental forming) technique. The aim of this study is to compare both techniques with the purpose of exposing their advantages and disadvantages in the production of industrial parts, as well as to inform about Die-less as an alternative manufacturing process. Experiments with the exhaust pipe cover of a vehicle are performed, the main process parameters are described, and formed workpieces without evidence of defects are achieved. Significant differences between the two techniques in terms of production times and accuracy to the original model are also detected. Finally, it is suggested when is more convenient to use each of these.
topic Incremental Sheet Forming
Forming Die
Computerized Numerical Control (CNC)
Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)
Computer Aided Design (CAD) Die-less SPIF-DPIF
Aluminum Alloy 1100
url http://revistascientificas.cuc.edu.co/index.php/ingecuc/article/view/544
work_keys_str_mv AT adrianjosebenitezlozano comparativeanalysisbetweenthespifanddpifvariantsfordielessformingprocessforanautomotiveworkpiece
AT gabrieljaimeparamobermudez comparativeanalysisbetweenthespifanddpifvariantsfordielessformingprocessforanautomotiveworkpiece
AT frankalexanderbustamantecorrea comparativeanalysisbetweenthespifanddpifvariantsfordielessformingprocessforanautomotiveworkpiece
_version_ 1725514445931675648