An Investigation of Robotic Incremental Sheet Metal Forming as a Method for Prototyping Parametric Architectural Skins

  • Ammar KaloEmail author
  • Michael Jake Newsum


Given its relative low-cost, speed and versatility, incremental sheet metal forming promises to introduce new ways in which architectural sheet metal cladding components are designed, prototyped and fabricated. Expanding on research done on this fabrication method, this work aims to study Single Point Incremental Forming (SPIF) and Double-Sided Incremental Forming (DSIF) as a viable option to produce highly customized, performative architectural skins. Utilizing the reconfigurable potentials of robotic arms’ versatile tooling, multi-axial positioning, and simultaneous programming, new methods are integrated into the forming process for structuring, verifying and articulating parametric parts.


Single point incremental forming Robotic fabrication Metal forming Parametric design Architectural skins 



The authors would like to thank Taubman College FabLab Director Wes McGee for his continuous and generous support. This research was supported by the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan, in addition to the Rackham Graduate School at the University of Michigan.


  1. Durante M, Formisano A, Langella A (2010) Comparison between analytical and experimental roughness values of components created by incremental forming. J Mater Process Technol 210(14):1934–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eekhout M (2008) Material experiments in design and build. In: Kolarevic B, Klinger K (eds) Manufacturing material effects: rethinking design and making in architecture. Routledge, New York, p 236Google Scholar
  3. Hensel M, Menges A (2009) Patterns in performance-oriented design. Architectural Des 79(6):89–93Google Scholar
  4. Ingarao G, Ambrogio G, Gagliardi F, Lorenzo RD (2012) A sustainability point of view on sheet metal forming operations: material wasting and energy consumption in incremental forming and stamping processes. J Clean Prod 29–30:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kalo A, Newsum MJ, McGee W (2014) Performing: exploring incremental sheet metal forming methods for generating low-cost, highly customized components. In: Fabricate: Negotiating design and making. gta Verlag, Zurich, pp 166–173Google Scholar
  6. Kreimeier D, Buff B, Magnus C, Smukala V, Zhu J (2011) Robot-based incremental sheet metal forming—increasing the geometrical accuracy of complex parts. Key Eng Mater 473:853–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Maidagan E, Zettler J, Bambach M, Rodríguez P, Hirt G (2007) A new incremental sheet forming process based on a flexible supporting die system. Key Eng Mater 344:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malhotra R, Cao J, Ren F, Kiridena V, Xia C, Reddy N (2011) Improvement of geometric accuracy in incremental forming by using a squeezing toolpath strategy with two forming tools. In: Proceedings of the ASME international manufacturing science and engineering conference, Dearborn, 30 Aug 2013, pp 603–611Google Scholar
  9. Meier H, Buff B, Smukala V (2009) Robot-based incremental sheet metal forming—increasing the part accuracy in an automated, industrial forming cell. Key Eng Mater 410–411:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nørgaard T, Marie D (2010) Fog-basking behaviour and water collection efficiency in Namib Desert Darkling beetles. Front Zool 7(23):1–8. Available from: Frontiers in Zoology (30 May 2013)Google Scholar
  11. Simmons M (2008) Material collaborations. In: Kolarevic B, Klinger K (eds) Manufacturing material effects: rethinking design and making in architecture. Routledge, New York, p 262Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Southern California Institute of ArchitectureLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations