Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet material forming process capable of forming complex geometries without dedicated dies or fixtures. This process forms the workpiece material through motion of a typically hemispherically-shaped forming tool over its surface at incremental depths. These motions have traditionally been constrained tangential to the outer periphery of the geometry at each depth.
The dieless nature of SPIF makes it an ideal process for prototyping and low-to medium-volume industries. By avoiding the upfront cost of dedicated die fabrication, the cost per part at lower volumes is often less than that of traditional stamping. However, due to the much lower processing rate currently hindering SPIF, the cost per part exceeds that of stamping at higher volumes. Several other advantages are apparent through using SPIF at lower volumes. For example, when prototyping, geometries may be rapidly altered by changing the toolpath used to control the forming tool's motion. To perform this action in stamping requires additional machining and replacement of the dies, a commonly iterative process. Another example is the elimination of costs related to die management and storage.
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet material forming process capable of forming complex geometries without dedicated dies or fixtures. This process forms the workpiece material through motion of a typically hemispherically-shaped forming tool over its surface at incremental depths. These motions have traditionally been constrained tangential to the outer periphery of the geometry at each depth.
The dieless nature of SPIF makes it an ideal process for prototyping and low-to medium-volume industries. By avoiding the upfront cost of dedicated die fabrication, the cost per part at lower volumes is often less than that of traditional stamping. However, due to the much lower processing rate currently hindering SPIF, the cost per part exceeds that of stamping at higher volumes. Several other advantages are apparent through using SPIF at lower volumes. For example, when prototyping, geometries may be rapidly altered by changing the toolpath used to control the forming tool's motion. To perform this action in stamping requires additional machining and replacement of the dies, a commonly iterative process. Another example is the elimination of costs related to die management and storage.
Industries which foresee the need to reproduce legacy parts in the future may simply store the toolpaths used to create such parts digitally.
Industrial use of SPIF is currently limited due to several disadvantages. However, it is anticipated that this technology will be applicable to industries requiring prototyping, since parts may be manufactured with high flexibility and rapid production. SPIF's inherent formability improvements relative to stamping, as will be discussed in a later section, makes this technology an excellent option within the aerospace industries for manufacturing complex geometries that do not require large batch sizes. Furthermore, the scalability of this process allows for its use in manufacturing large panels.
Springback and difficulty in predicting it remains a primary concern of manufacturers. The local deformations imposed by the forming tool result in complex straining, leading to complex elastic recovery. This elastic recovery is realized as springback, most notably once the workpiece is removed from its fixture. A simple way to eliminate or reduce springback is to anneal the workpiece subsequent to forming, but prior to removal from the fixture. This has been accomplished through several different processes, including laser assisted SPIF [1] [2] [3] [4] , induction assisted SPIF [5] , and electrically assisted SPIF [6] [7] [8] [9] .
Another inherent drawback of SPIF is resultant poor surface variability. This issue arises from the highly localized and transient pressure of the forming tool, which causes a scalloping
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet material forming process capable of forming complex geometries without dedicated dies or fixtures. This process forms the workpiece material through motion of a typically hemispherically-shaped forming tool over its surface at incremental depths. These motions have traditionally been constrained tangential to the outer periphery of the geometry at each depth.
The dieless nature of SPIF makes it an ideal process for prototyping and low-to medium-volume industries. By avoiding the upfront cost of dedicated die fabrication, the cost per part at lower volumes is often less than that of traditional stamping. However, due to the much lower processing rate currently hindering SPIF, the cost per part exceeds that of stamping at higher volumes. Several other advantages are apparent through using SPIF at lower volumes. For example, when prototyping, geometries may be rapidly altered by changing the toolpath used to control the forming tool's motion. To perform this action in stamping requires additional machining and replacement of the dies, a commonly iterative process. Another example is the elimination of costs related to die management and storage.
Industries which foresee the need to reproduce legacy parts in the future may simply store the toolpaths used to create such parts digitally.
Industrial use of SPIF is currently limited due to several disadvantages. However, it is anticipated that this technology will be applicable to industries requiring prototyping, since parts may be manufactured with high flexibility and rapid production. SPIF's inherent formability improvements relative to stamping, as will be discussed in a later section, makes this technology an excellent option within the aerospace industries for manufacturing complex geometries that do not require large batch sizes. Furthermore, the scalability of this process allows for its use in manufacturing large panels.
Springback and difficulty in predicting it remains a primary concern of manufacturers. The local deformations imposed by the forming tool result in complex straining, leading to complex elastic recovery. This elastic recovery is realized as springback, most notably once the workpiece is removed from its fixture. A simple way to eliminate or reduce springback is to anneal the workpiece subsequent to forming, but prior to removal from the fixture. This has been accomplished through several different processes, including laser assisted SPIF [1] [2] [3] [4] , induction assisted SPIF [5] , and electrically assisted SPIF [6] [7] [8] [9] .
Another inherent drawback of SPIF is resultant poor surface variability. This issue arises from the highly localized and transient pressure of the forming tool, which causes a scalloping 
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet material forming process recognized for its potential performance in low to medium volume production due to precluding the need for high-investment stamping dies. This process forms blanks instead through the use of local deformations, traditionally imposed utilizing a hemispherically-shaped tool. The dieless nature of this process makes it ideal at low volumes; however, several drawbacks of the process currently inhibit its widespread use in industry, including difficult-to-predict springback and poor surface finish. Another perceived drawback of SPIF is overall low formability. Conventional toolpaths form the blank through a series of successive passes in which the tool is generally constrained to the XY plane. Here a novel toolpath is proposed and tested experimentally and through simulation to determine its viability of improving formability. The toolpath investigated travels radially through the center of the workpiece, rather than along its periphery, in order to generate a more uniform thickness profile. A formability improvement of 21% was found utilizing this strategy.
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet material forming process capable of forming complex geometries without dedicated dies or fixtures. This process forms the workpiece material through motion of a typically hemispherically-shaped forming tool over its surface at incremental depths. These motions have traditionally been constrained tangential to the outer periphery of the geometry at each depth.
The dieless nature of SPIF makes it an ideal process for prototyping and low-to medium-volume industries. By avoiding the upfront cost of dedicated die fabrication, the cost per part at lower volumes is often less than that of traditional stamping. However, due to the much lower processing rate currently hindering SPIF, the cost per part exceeds that of stamping at higher volumes. Several other advantages are apparent through using SPIF at lower volumes. For example, when prototyping, geometries may be rapidly altered by changing the toolpath used to control the forming tool's motion. To perform this action in stamping requires additional machining and replacement of the dies, a commonly iterative process. Another example is the elimination of costs related to die management and storage.
Industries which foresee the need to reproduce legacy parts in the future may simply store the toolpaths used to create such parts digitally.
Industrial use of SPIF is currently limited due to several disadvantages. However, it is anticipated that this technology will be applicable to industries requiring prototyping, since parts may be manufactured with high flexibility and rapid production. SPIF's inherent formability improvements relative to stamping, as will be discussed in a later section, makes this technology an excellent option within the aerospace industries for manufacturing complex geometries that do not require large batch sizes. Furthermore, the scalability of this process allows for its use in manufacturing large panels.
Springback and difficulty in predicting it remains a primary concern of manufacturers. The local deformations imposed by the forming tool result in complex straining, leading to complex elastic recovery. This elastic recovery is realized as springback, most notably once the workpiece is removed from its fixture. A simple way to eliminate or reduce springback is to anneal the workpiece subsequent to forming, but prior to removal from the fixture. This has been accomplished through several different processes, including laser assisted SPIF [1] [2] [3] [4] , induction assisted SPIF [5] , and electrically assisted SPIF [6] [7] [8] [9] .
Another inherent drawback of SPIF is resultant poor surface variability. This issue arises from the highly localized and transient pressure of the forming tool, which causes a scalloping
Single point incremental forming (SPIF) is a sheet material forming process capable of forming complex geometries without dedicated dies or fixtures. This process forms the workpiece material through motion of a typically hemispherically-shaped forming tool over its surface at incremental depths. These motions have traditionally been constrained tangential to the outer periphery of the geometry at each depth.
The dieless nature of SPIF makes it an ideal process for prototyping and low-to medium-volume industries. By avoiding the upfront cost of dedicated die fabrication, the cost per part at lower volumes is often less than that of traditional stamping. However, due to the much lower processing rate currently hindering SPIF, the cost per part exceeds that of stamping at higher volumes. Several other advantages are apparent through using SPIF at lower volumes. For example, when prototyping, geometries may be rapidly altered by changing the toolpath used to control the forming tool's motion. To perform this action in stamping requires additional machining and replacement of the dies, a commonly iterative process. Another example is the elimination of costs related to die management and storage.
Industries which foresee the need to reproduce legacy parts in the future may simply store the toolpaths used to create such parts digitally.
Industrial use of SPIF is currently limited due to several disadvantages. However, it is anticipated that this technology will be applicable to industries requiring prototyping, since parts may be manufactured with high flexibility and rapid production. SPIF's inherent formability improvements relative to stamping, as will be discussed in a later section, makes this technology an excellent option within the aerospace industries for manufacturing complex geometries that do not require large batch sizes. Furthermore, the scalability of this process allows for its use in manufacturing large panels.
Springback and difficulty in predicting it remains a primary concern of manufacturers. The local deformations imposed by the forming tool result in complex straining, leading to complex elastic recovery. This elastic recovery is realized as springback, most notably once the workpiece is removed from its fixture. A simple way to eliminate or reduce springback is to anneal the workpiece subsequent to forming, but prior to removal from the fixture. This has been accomplished through several different processes, including laser assisted SPIF [1] [2] [3] [4] , induction assisted SPIF [5] , and electrically assisted SPIF [6] [7] [8] [9] .
Another inherent drawback of SPIF is resultant poor surface variability. This issue arises from the highly localized and transient pressure of the forming tool, which causes a scalloping effect on surface of the workpiece. Similar to machining, the size of these scallops are directly dependent on the vertical step down selected when constructing the tool path; a lower step down size will improve the surface variability but also lengthen the forming time. Surface finish may also be affected during SPIF if no lubrication is used. Traditional stamping lubricants can be successfully used for conventional SPIF; however, these lubricants often do not work for heat assisted SPIF methods. In previous works, it was discovered that galinstan, a liquid metal, was capable of improving surface finish in an electrically assisted SPIF process [10] .
Enhanced formability relative to stamping also makes this an attractive technology for industry. With improved formability, workpieces may be designed with greater complexity than that which can be achieved through stamping. This inherent formability improvement is derived from the localized forming which occurs. During SPIF, bending, shearing, and stretching are all deformation modes experienced simultaneously by the material. The various mechanisms seen with any type of incremental forming (IF) which extend the formability limit curve are explained in greater detail in [11] .
In addition to the resulting surface variability, the toolpath parameters affect several other outcomes. Figure 1 displays examples of the two most common toolpath strategies currently used. The discrete step down method shown in Figure 1 b) is a simple strategy which can typically be produced in traditional CAM software. In general, the most widely used toolpath strategy currently used is the helical step down, shown in Figure 1 c) . This type of toolpath constantly feeds in the vertical direction throughout its horizontal movements and can create challenges for programming. Several publications outline how this type of path can be effectively achieved [12] [13] [14] . A specific case in which a discrete step down path is desired over a helical path is when forming soft polymers into cone-shaped geometries. When utilizing a helical step down path, the material tends to wrinkle. The discrete step down approach can be used to avoid this by alternating directions traveled around the workpiece with each step down. While the majority of research conducted on SPIF utilizes these traditional toolpathing strategies, several novel approaches have been investigated. The multi-stage forming strategy has been shown to significantly improve formability. This method forms the final geometry in multiple stages at increas-ing wall angles. Figure 2 shows how this can be achieved. In this figure, profile a) would be formed first, followed by b), c), and d) in sequence. This type of toolpath has been previously explored in several works [15] [16] [17] . While this may be considered a novel toolpathing strategy, the underlying approach to the toolpath is either a helical or discrete step down path. Another novel toolpath strategy which slightly deviates from the traditional strategies is the wavy toolpath [18] . This toolpath travels in waves centered around a path which follows the standard helical toolpath. The objective of this path is to emulate vibration assisted incremental forming and achieve a unique surface finish with improved surface variability. A disadvantage experienced with this type of path was an unintentional reduction in feedrate. In this experimental testing, a lower-grade milling center was used during forming. This mill was unable to efficiently handle the high resolution of G-code needed to produce these waves, causing the mill to move at a slower rate than was desired.
A novel toolpath is proposed and tested herein which deviates from the conventional toolpaths previously discussed, with the primary objective to achieve a more uniform thickness profile. This toolpathing strategy, termed a radial toolpath, performs tool motions perpendicular to the periphery of the geometry, resulting in the tool traveling through the center of the workpiece. With traditional toolpaths, portions of geometries with flats in the center regions of the workpiece remain untouched by the forming tool, causing variation in resultant thickness and stress. While multi-stage forming strategies are able to reduce this effect by forming into this region during preliminary passes, all regions are not guaranteed to be formed. However, the proposed radial toolpath is able to ensure all material is formed, regardless of the selected parameters.
Another advantage of the radial toolpath is its ability to stretch the material in more desirable directions. Traditional toolpaths which travel tangential to the geometry edges stretch the material in a singular direction. It is predicted that formability improvements may be possible by stretching material radially, rather than tangentially, since the material is stretched in a similar direction to which it is being drawn.
Several parameters may be controlled when creating a radial toolpath. Herein, a truncated cone geometry was used for testing; therefore the parameters discussed most directly apply to this geometry. However, similar parameters exist for any other geometry. The studied parameters include: step size, step over, 2 inside diameter, and curve. These parameters can be visualized in Figures 4 and 3 .
Step Size Following stage four, the tool begins traveling downward towards the central region, as defined in stage one, and the cycle continues. A distinction of this particular strategy which must be noted is that the tool continues a downward motion as it travels across the central region of the workpiece. Additionally, as shown in Figure 3 1 2 Step Size is annotated at a similar plane to the full Step Size. This is because the tool travels across the geometry at each pass, causing a similar plane to be formed on the opposite side of the part. A variation of the radial toolpath could be performed in which the tool travels to the center of the workpiece and is retracted, rather than continuing to form Step Size would not exist in the same plane as the full Step Size.
Another distinct parameter which was altered in testing was the Curve. Figure 4 designates this value as CURVATURE. The dashed red lines in these figures represent the location to which the tool traveled as it formed the side wall of the geometry. A simple approach to the radial toolpath is to have these locations form linearly, as depicted in Figure 4 a) . However, an advantage was discovered during preliminary testing by constraining these points to a curve. While this curve could have formed in the opposite orientation (i.e. with a center point located at the interior of the part, rather than the outside), it was found that better results were obtained utilizing the orientation shown in Figure 4 b).
Experimental testing of the radial toolpath was performed using 0.8 mm thick 1008 CR steel sheets. This material was constrained in a circular clamping fixture with a diameter of 200 mm. A HAAS VF-3YT vertical milling center with a 9.5 mm diameter WC forming tool was used throughout testing. PTFE lubricant was applied to workpiece prior to forming. Tool rotation was free spinning. A feed rate of 5000 mm/min was also used. The desired geometry was a cylindrical shape with vertical walls, an outer diameter of 150 mm and a height of 50 mm.
Process parameter ranges were largely selected based on intuition for this novel investigation. The step size selected for baseline testing utilizing a helical toolpath was 0.381 mm. This is a commonly used step size that provides sufficient surface finish at reasonable processing times. The step sizes selected for the radial toolpath were approximately twice and four times the baseline step size value. It was hypothesized that this particular 3 toolpath's performance would be similar to baseline toolpaths with half their step size due to the cross-over which occurs at 1 2 Step Size.
The
Step Over values tested were determined partially through preliminary testing. During this testing, it was observed that step over values which caused the tool to travel along the same plane at each revolution caused localized forming along this plane, leading to premature failure. An improvement was observed by selecting
Step Over values which caused the tool to continuously shift its plane of motion throughout forming. Therefore,
Step Over values were selected such S tepOver 360 an integer. Additionally, it was found that selecting too large of a
Step Over value also caused highly localized forming which led to premature failure. However, a small Step Over value would significantly increase the forming time. A balance between these drawbacks was considered and a moderate value was selected.
Formability was calculated using the depth at which fracture occurred. This depth was recorded and then used to find the line of code in which failure occurred. The radial location of the tool was then found using the XY coordinates. This value coupled with the Z location of the tool was then used to determine the angle which was being formed at failure. This angle was considered as the formability of the toolpath.
Traditionally, formability of an incremental forming process is tested by forming a funnel shaped geometry with a wall angle which increases with depth. This method is a sufficient analysis to compare the effects of various process parameters when the parameters do not drastically differ (i.e. when the various process parameters may be used to form similar funnel shapes). The geometry formed by the radial toolpath was not, however, a funnel shape. This geometry contained straight walls, rather than the curved walls featured in funnel shaped geometries. Because a funnel shape could not be formed by the radial toolpath, a different approach was used to perform baseline tests. Traditional helical toolpaths were used to form the same geometry that was created at failure during radial toolpath testing. If the geometry could be successfully formed using traditional toolpaths, the depth and wall angle of the geometry were increased until failure was reached. A similar approach was used when the geometry failed initially at the matching geometry, except the depth was incrementally decreased until a successful part was formed. Increments of 2.5°were used when increasing or decreasing the wall angle values.
The results of experimental testing with their respective testing parameters are shown in Table 1 . The baseline test, which utilized a helical toolpathing strategy, produced a formability of 64.64°. The greatest formability was achieved by utilizing a step size of 0.635 mm, a step over of 13.00°, an inside diameter of 0 mm, and a curve value of 100 mm. These parameters produced a formability of 78.07°, a 21% improvement over the baseline toolpath. These tests are shown comparatively in Figure 7 .
Experimental testing revealed several trends of the various process parameters. In general, a decrease in step over resulted b) a) Fig. 7 . Comparison images of a) baseline test (64.64°formability) and b) best radial toolpath result (78.07°formability) in an increase in formability. This was an anticipated trend, since a low step over value produces a more uniform strain field as previously discussed. A similar effect was realized for the step size parameter. The most sensitive parameter over the range tested herein was the inside diameter value. A drastic difference can be seen for tests with curvature values of 100. Subsequent to testing using a curve value of 100, a lower curve value of 75 was tested to determine if a smaller radiused curve would have a positive influence on formability. It was found that the decrease of 25 mm was insignificant. Therefore, the optimum curve value may be selected based on other parameters such as forming rate or the size of the hole produced from forming, which is discussed in further detail in a later section.
The radial toolpaths produced herein were significantly longer than the baseline helical toolpath. However, this does not directly equate to a significant increase in forming time or loss of efficiency. When creating helical toolpaths, even simple surfaces require complex curves to form them. This results in dense G-code with relatively short distances between points. While some machines are able to effectively smooth out the transition between these points, other sequential machines calculate moves at each point, stopping at each point on extremely short paths to wait for calculations to complete; this creates significant losses in efficiency, feed rate and smoothness. In the case of the cylinder geometry, the radial toolpath was able to alleviate this loss in efficiency because the majority of motions occur linearly and over long distances. Therefore, while the length of the overall toolpath may be much longer than the baseline toolpath, other factors which depend on the machine used must be considered when comparing the efficiency of the toolpaths.
An unintended consequence of the radial toolpath was the formation of a hole located in the center of the workpiece. What appeared to be anomalous behavior was first questioned to be due to excessive material wear resulting from the significant number of tool passes which travel over this region. However, after further investigation, it was found that this hole was formed by the radial stretching of the material. The tool may be considered to push and pull material from the center of the workpiece since it travels continuously through this region. However, the radial toolpath strategy selected for this study 4 Step Size (mm)
Step caused the majority of radial stretching to occur outwardly due to its continuous downward motion (described as stage two of forming). This motion caused the tool to form deeper after it has passed the center of the workpiece, creating more friction in the pulling direction than in the pushing. Images of hole formations can be seen in Figure 8 and can be considered a defect. It is hypothesized that the hole creation can be eliminated by adapting a radial toolpath which travels to the center of the workpiece and stops, rather than enabling the tool motion to travel past the center. However, in applications where the center regions of a part may be removed, this behavior is not a limitation. Additionally, the location of failure must be considered. Traditional SPIF toolpaths will cause failure to occur in the formed surfaces of the part which require the greatest accuracy and surface finish. Therefore, any failure that occurs in these surfaces will most likely disqualify a part. Failure in the radial toolpath initially occurs at the center of the workpiece. Failure at this location may be removed in post processing since it may not be located in a critical area.
As shown in Figure 8 , the size of the hole formed during processing was dependent on the parameters used. The resulting formability was also indicative of the size of the hole produced. In Figure 8 , the test shown as image a), with a smaller hole, had a formability of 53.30°, while the test shown as image b) had a formability of 75.77°. Future studies will aim to further characterize the process parameter effects on hole formation; this initial testing has shown that this method could be a viable process for hole flanging operations.
Finite element simulations of the radial toolpath were performed in Hypermesh, utilizing the RADIOSS explicit solver. b) a) All test parameters set during simulation mirror those used in experimental testing except for the feed rate. A friction coefficient of 0.37 was used. Experimental testing was used to determine this value and is described in greater detail in another work [19] . The baseline test, as well as three different radial toolpaths were tested. 5
The material properties used in the simulation were derived from tensile test results in the same material used for experimental testing. Three tests in each roll direction were averaged to create the stress-strain curve shown in Figure 9 , which was also used in the simulation. Anisotropy of the material was ignored in order to reduce the computation time of the simulation. It was also assumed that the material remained at room temperature throughout the experimental tests, negating the need for multiple stress-strain curves at different temperatures. As part of the initial investigation of this type of toolpath, assumptions were eliminated as much as reasonably possible in order to most accurately simulate the process; the computation time for the simulation was therefore relatively long. An explicit solver was selected for this simulation due to the high strains imposed on the workpiece. The feed velocity of the tool was simulated to match experiment. The mesh size was approximately 5 mm, resulting in a total of 1,007 nodes. Five elements were modelled through the thickness. The perimeter of the workpiece was constrained from translation and rotation.
Selected results from simulations are displayed in Figures  10 and 11 . The results shown in Figure 10 represent a baseline test in which a conventional helical toolpath was used with a step size of 0.38 mm. Figure 11 displays the results from the comparative radial toolpath. These simulations replicate the experimental radial toolpath test which used the following parameters: 13°Step Over, 0 mm ID, 100 mm Curve.
From Figures 11 A) and B), it can be seen that stress develops much more uniformly throughout the entire workpiece relative to the baseline stress shown in Figures 10 A) and B). The baseline stress figure shows that stress is heavily concentrated in a circle around the formed area, indicated by the red band in these images. The radial toolpath's stress can be seen as more evenly distributed along the wall and center of the part, which is indicated by the red patches on the side walls. Figure 11 A) , which shows the early stages of forming, reveals that stress initially develops over a much greater area than at the later stages shown in B). This is attributed to the 0 mm ID parameter which was used in this test. At the beginning of forming, the tool travels at an angle to the center of the workpiece. However, as forming continues, the tool does not travel directly to the center of the workpiece. Rather, it travels to a point radially offset from the center, and then travels at a much lower angle across the center of the workpiece. This concept is illustrated in Figure 5 . This stress distribution can also be related to the wall of the part, which forms in a similar progression to the stress seen in these figures.
A significant difference between toolpaths is obvious from the results shown. As can be seen in Figures 10 C) and D), the strain resulting from a conventional helical toolpath test is largely produced along the wall of the geometry. This is distinctly different from the resulting strain of the radial toolpath shown in Figures 11 C) and D). These results reveal that strain develops primarily in the center of the workpiece, rather than along the wall. Furthermore, the strain which develops for this particular set of parameters is highly concentrated at the center of the workpiece. This may be seen as a disadvantage of these parameters and future optimization should be aimed towards distributing this strain.
An issue observed during simulation of these toolpaths is the high maximum strain of the elements. Though difficult to see in Figure 11 D), this simulation resulted in significant element distortion. Future simulations should incorporate mesh refinements once these large strains are experienced. Future work should also focus on comparing the forming limit curves of conventional helical toolpath incremental forming with the radial toolpath strategy. This will provide a more complete view of the effects the radial toolpath has on formability. Another problem observed with this simulation was inaccurate thickness results. The thickness reduction of the material was exaggerated in the simulation and were determined to not be feasible in reality. Future work will investigate this behavior and develop strategies for improving thickness reduction accuracy.
A new toolpath approach for single point incremental forming is presented which represents a departure from all other described approaches. Rather than driving the tool tangentially with step-down or constant axial feed, the tool is instead driven in the radial direction, across the center of the workpiece. This strategy allows for more consistent deformation across all areas of the workpiece (no zones left undeformed), leading to more consistent thickness of the resultant part and improved achievable elongation. Simulation of the process was validated through experimentation. An increase in formability of more than 20% over the baseline case was observed. Another finding was the possibility that such a toolpath could be used for hole flanging operations. 