Comparing Different Sheet Metal Forming Processes for Reshaping Purposes

The reshaping approach is widely considered a virtuous strategy in line with the pillars of the Circular Economy. According to this approach, End-of-Life (EoL) components are subjected to a second forming process to achieve a new functional geometry. However, EoL parts often exhibit a non-uniform thickness distribution and work-hardened zones resulting from the primary manufacturing step, which makes the design of the reshaping step not trivial. Beyond the standard objectives like avoiding fracture and minimizing springback during the reshaping operations, one of the most concerning aspects is the complete removal of the geometrical features coming from the initial forming process. Flexibility and versatility of the forming process are unavoidable requirements to make the reshaping successful. Therefore, three different reshaping routes are numerically investigated in the present work: (i) reshaping by hydroforming (RH) at room temperature; (ii) reshaping by gas forming (RGF) at hot temperature; (iii) a hybrid approach, based on the combination of an intermediate deformation step via Single Point Incremental Forming followed by sheet hydroforming (RHA). The three routes share the same EoL, characterized by the presence of a deep-drawn square feature. Comparing the three routes, in terms of final shape and thinning distribution, with a reference case study (represented by the sole hydroforming process carried out on an undeformed flat blank) allowed to conclude that the feature removal and a non-severe thinning could not be achieved simultaneously: in fact, while RGF and RHA ensure a more evident suppression of the pre-existing feature, they simultaneously induce a more pronounced and localized thinning compared to the RH route.