e

AutoForm Plus R5.2

Planning and Ilidding

Parti

VS
V

V 2014 AutoForm Engineering GmbH, Switzerland.

I 1
Exercise
Define the part
First step to generating the part specific cost estimate is to Define the Part. This is done by importing

the specific part geometry, defining a preliminary press orientation (die tip), and selecting the material

used. For this exercise we will use a B-pillar reinforcement CAD model as our geometry. The sequence of

operation is not component specific and can be used for any type of stamping geometry with any

combination of material.

Part > > Part Geometry > Import Part > Import Parts > Exercise_A.igs

Part > > Automatic > (Used Faces: Ali > Tip > Tipping: Automatic)

Part > Material > Add Material > Select a material to import > Europe > Steels_conventional_HSS >

S420MC.mtb > Open > Add Material Editor > Thickness: 1.10 mm > OK

Blank Size and Cost

Part > Formch > Add Formcheck > efine Draw Geomet > Boundary Fill: Generate > Roll

Radius: 300 mm >Wrap Surface: Generate > Shift: 10 mm > Addendum: Generate > Apply

Pari > > Develop Pa > Geometry refers to: Upper Side of Part > Apply

Blank > Outline > Outline : Copy From ... > Pick Curve > Part > Formcheck Part > Blank Outline >

Ok

Define plan
Features v 3-10 D-20 T-30

Blank Outline

Draw Region 1

Outer Trim

Circular Role 24 rtC

Circular Role 23 t(C

Circular Role 22

Circular Role 21

Circular Role 20

Circular Role 19

Circular /iole 18

Circular Role 17

&aliar Role 16

Circular Role 15

Circular Mole 14

Circular Mole 13

Circular Role 12

Plan > Process: Autoplan > Press > Select from Database > TR_3P1 > Create Plan

4
 1
Generate Tool Cost
Processing Unit

Component A tgi
Component B Component_.

I"L sa a

Manufacturing Step 1 Manufacturing Step n Material Hardening

l
i

f(Parameterl(Component B),..,Parameter k (Component BH

g(Parameterl(Cornponent Bi.....Parameter k (Component 9))

h(Parametert (Component BParameter k (Component 13))

Pian > > Add Tooling

Pian > Mar2 > Add Piece Cost

5
Generate report

AutoForm"" R5 Exercise A Ve
V

Tralning Transfer Dle Toollng Cost

AutoFiximPlus R5 Total Toding Cosi 421372.00 $

Ccst Table
Part Untilled
Yet 2.° 22.0 te. 0.0e Pe. 00, P•011220 P0011"0.1102ffl I0100
Die Type Transfer Press ~TI 5010 ila ffe 4.19 'Ne se2 Sete Mn Ur, SIM tle3

0.
PC•00~1. en. 02 12 eVeI3 •ele eTle Me eeee eale
Press Transfer Press onásamna~ nu em 4c, wa, tra pr2 an nu a aa anu
3374
Number of OPs <trai r - -PH". :e :na n"tra "" 3 nn
ea 1.4.
4
paa~ as aa ao 47. sm a a
Material 0.r Cem Vaia bis Ie. 1.00 1.0 PS 954 Ne, een. .4.0 ect
0.ealree en706061,7 00000e
Material HX300LAD ..~00 00010Ork O e Dee 0
Thickness 1.20 mm S.as
lesa
Utiizatico 42.3%
ata
CoilWeight 3.662 kg

Part Weight 1.550 kg

Matertal Price 0.80 tiikg
Seroo Cost 0.200 6119
Piece Cost
Coil Width 895.00 mm

Pitch 428.82 mm
..........
ec-....,
253 % 10602500 $
74.6% 01182 00 $
• ..,.,o, 217% 1.0411
Total Productionn Volume 500000.00 el.kne Mein %I% 4.17 e DetMeitla 25.9% 07929.09 1
Robustness Levei High e TY-Ott 04% 3946.00 2
Reject Rate 0.20% • ....d.... • 200020•101 75.7% OSSOS
112.0.001..• Le nov. 75.6% 65767-00 1
Tod and Maintenance Cost 1.08 $ • 0,001 tf le ale
21100/Gieln2 5.2% [03.00 II
uai as. Ne %em omiti
Bank Material Cost 2.51 $
Production Line Cost 0.47 $
Rework Cost 0.02 $
Shipping Cost 0.40 $

Design Bar > Current Design > Drop Down menu > Start Reporting > Use AF Templates

AutoForm-ReportManager > Ribbon Bar > Reporting > Update ali > Switch to Report

Short summary:

_PIPOCMCIIIMitmos
quv ProcessPlannet
CostCalculato leal elenderda
StampingAdviser
Roa essedeide

Proposed
Process
Estimated Die
Costs

6
Review and evaluate costs
Cost estimation results are based on imported part geometry and set of rules defined within core
database and applied standards (loaded at your workstation/network). The outcome is rapid plan
generation with reflecting cost estimation for the assumptions used. However, as assumptions can differ
from the actual production process, some differences are likely.

In this exercise we made assumptions about the production line, process, blank size and other cost
driving variables. These assumptions provide a "reasonable" basis for early budgetary requirements.
These initial assumptions are guided by the automatic application of AutoForm Standards files/database;
when desired, different standards or assumptions can be applied to arrive at different results.

Standards Files
We can find different cost estimation results for the part/process modeled through the exchange of
standards files. For this exercise we will compare the effect on the estimated cost when applying a
different tool cost standard to the current part and process. We will see the effect that changes to
assumed ''Charge rates" have for an identical process. We will begin by "cloning" the current project,

then loading and setting a new tool cost standard to represent the alternative cost structure.

01/4\ e 'J StancEQS

.
Tcoling Co-t (OEM)TooingStandard
Process Pian (01EM)Pr~anStEnclard
Tolerances & Spr Pr ms (OE1)PressSt3ndard focint
Sym ery Part VP e De Face and Process Sai" <nono
Symmetry •
Part Type Irene' Panei
Define :
O
Contrd Parameters
&ama
<nane>
<role>
Evaluation <nem>
e. Par! Geometry
Reference Desgn GrOup of Slandards enYle>
Ewerdse A tJ 1
- ft Start Reportmg Ctrl+R

Design Bar> Current Design > Cone design (Design renamed "Copy of Exercise A.afd")

Right Hand Designer > Application Menu > Open > Exercise A.afci

7
_
11
owmilm••••••••••

Compare how using different standards can for the same part/process arrive at different resource

requirements and different cost estimations.

Process modifications and refinements

Reviewing the process plan we find that AutoForm-ProcessPlanner has performed a feature detection

and AutoPlan for the part imported for the exercise.

The user can perform steps to alter and for their needs enhance existing plan. Features indicate WHAT is

due to manufacture, operations indicate WHERE it will be done and Processing units are describing

HOW it will be done. Ali together contained within the Plan present how AutoForm defines the process

to manufacture the part, each processing unit requires tooling which in turn requires resources to design

and manufacture. It is through these processing units that part of the cost estimation is performed.

Manipulating the assumed process has a direct effect on the cost estimation for the part/process.

Application Toolbar > Window > Single view

Plan > > Right hand AF-Designer > Drag same design from left window to the right

window

Ribbon Bar > Synchronization of designers and shown objects (off)

Costs > Trend Indication (on)

Review in the 3D window the part and process indications:

8
 ProcessWan Tookng Fiece Cost

Features v ••• 13-10 0-20 T-M F-10 F-50

Draw Region 1

Outer Trim
Complex Flange 1

Circular Hole 1
Circular Mole 2

Note: me 3 boles M the pillar reinforcement; the three arrows represent CAMs for the redirection of the
press energy to pierce the bole direct these boles could be perced without the use of the CAM then
the change would reflect different resource requirements and a different cost.

Prior to any changes use Trend Indication button to define initial state for comparison.

Plan (Left hand Designer) > Process Plan > Circular Hole 1 > Pierce with Cam (T-60) > RMB > No

1 i '11

Plan (Left hand Designer) > > Circular Hole 2 > Pierce with Cam (T-60) > RMB > No

Plan (Left hand Designer) > Process Plan > Circular Hole 1 > Pierce with Cam (T-60) > RMB > No

Cam 3

(Option to multi select processing units and remove CAM assignment)

After that selection is made the cost will change and be indicated in the right hand window of the COST

area of the Tooling page.

9
 Cost Resource

Item S Total T-
Englneeng 8'088 15239 21563 10363 8'
Ih• CNC Madiring 6726 9'756 15650 9455 81
Cie Maldnornufacturhg 13,3591 4475 22017 6754 5
Die liyaut 3224 4718 15695 5316 4
1 Cast /atei 39672 1969 4193 3'715 1087 3'
Other Materiais 2961 26 56 826 574[
Oter Cost. 1695 2714 2434 1164 1
Flarckning 673 603 60
~banal cost
Surcharges 642 323 1650 775
Total 417769 32729 41975 84152 7.9.543

Green indicates that the cost is lower (better) and red indicates cost is higher. However, the assumption

that the CAM can be eliminated is a process/method concern that may not in fact be supportable if the

project moves forward. When refining the preliminary cost estimate to more closely reflect the probably

production considerations the user can use capabilities of AutoForm-ProcessPlanner to evaluate the

proposed process and determine if the process is plausible, and by extension the cost.

Trim angle check > Review trim curves

The method can be reviewed and evaluated for likelihood or plausibility. Using the Angle Check

function one can discern if the pierce holes that we just indicated were No Cam can actually be trimmed

without the use of CAMs.

10 1
In this display mode curves that are to be trimmed using the currently selected press operation working

direction are color coded.

• Green indicates that trim angle and/or shear angle is within safe limits
• Yellow indicates that angle measured is between safe and severe limits
• Red indicates that angle is exceeding the severe limits

To avoid these severe die conditions often requires the use of CAMs ar re-tipping of the part, ar in the

most extreme cases redesign of the part to alleviate the condition. In the following exercise a similar

part will be processed and coasted using input provided according to general process guideline

document. Rather than reliance on the Automatic Processes applied to this part.

Automatic process determination works quite well for those users who do not have access to

manufacturing guidelines ar input due to experience or time constraints.

Graphical User Interface Overview

See appendix A for further information on the Graphical User Interface

Bidding with manufacturing guidelines exercise

Initial budget developed using the procedure in previous pages required no direct user input in regard

to manufacturing, other than selection of the production Une from the installed/loaded customer

standards. AutoForm-ProcessPlanner applied set of rules from the core database when performing the

feature detection and automatic planning. However this generic application of the processing rules will

still leave room for product specific and manufacturing process specific revisions to the preliminary

process.

These early process plans and estimations can be improved by editing the automatic process

determination, definition of the features, order of the processing units applied to the features, and

number of operations employed. In this extension of the first exercise, we will review and edit the

process.

Procedurally, the exercise follows the same steps. However, to reflect the manufacturing process

recomendations more detail will be added to the planning of the process. Not only using the "Autoplan"

function, but instead definining the process with greater detail.

The result is a price that imay be higher ar lower than the early budgetary cost plan reached in Exercise

A; More precise estimation of cost expectations.

e
Request for Generate
Define Part
costs
Elle tece cost

Target process (lean process, standard bil of process, sketcli)

Preliminary Process B-Pillar

'
,f
r , !i iceek

Pressfine I Transfer Press

OP 10 Shear Blank
OP 20 Draw
OP 30 Trim (direct developed)
OP 40 Flange
OP 50 Cam flange with filler

Preliminary process/Target process description indicates that the pillar reinforcement will be assumed to

run as a double attached (left/right symmetrical) part. Additionally, the complex flange on the header is
assumed to be formed as a secondary operation. Accordingly, the tool cost needs to reflect this.

We will perform the exercise with the same part to reflect this more detailed concept.

Exercise 13
Define part parameters for Double Attached Process
Import the B-pillar geometry

> Part Geometry > Import Part > Import Parts > Exercise_A.igs

> Symmetry & Part Type > Half input, Double Attached, Symmetrical

12 1
v Symmetry St Part Type

3yrirretry ft fIA
PartT,pe !rerPareF O

Part > > Automatic Tipping

Before After
L . ,
. -4q
.. ' 1 P'
,
- •

Tipping result is not ideal for manufacturing, and does not match the target process as indicated.

Automatic tipping result will be improved to reflect the preliminary process/target process. Rotation of

the Tio angle by 180 degrees about the Z axis (press vertical axis) should resolve any issues.

Part > ›. > Rotation > Rotate by: 180 > Around Current Z: +

(option to use: Part > Import > Symmetry & Part Type > (Symmetry) Define > Symmetry Plane

Editor > Swap)

Before After

1 13
Realistic representation of the tipping and position of the part relative to the process influences aspects
of the tool cost prediction by affecting how features of the part are detected and preliminarily

processed. Orienting the part can increase or decrease the number of features that AutoForm-
ProcessPlanner determines whether cams are needed to complete the forming of the detected feature.

Likewise, orientation can make the apparent footprint of the tool increase or decrease. As the

production line increases or decreases the number of operations.

Part > > Select (using mouse) surfaces patch adjacent to the 3 pierced holes on the pillar

(upper seal)

Part > > ip Angle > Automatic

Part > Material > Add Material > Select a material to import > Europe > Steels_conventional_HSS >

5420MC.mtb > Open > Add Material Editor > Thickness: 1.10 mm > OK

Part > Formchk > Add Formcheck

This process should reflect the intent to draw the double attached part, as well as assure that the
complex flange at the header region is "developed" to accommodate direct trimming prior to a two-step

operation to complete the product geometry in the region. To properly perform the formcheck any
areas of the part that are considered to be "Secondary Forming" should be indicated prior to applying

the formcheck.

Formchk > Highlight region indicated in the diagram below

Formchk > Secondary Forming > Secondary forming Areas: Include

14 1
Part > 2:22 > Add Formcheck > Define Draw Geometry > Boundary Fill: Senerate

The user can improve geometry of double fill with changing and mowing control elements.

JoLble Fi 2 çienerate

II Conhol Ee'nents

Wrap Surface: > Addendum: Generate

This geometry represents a "potential" drawn geometry for our parts. While this is unlikely to be the

actual tooling geometry defined during manufacturing engineering, it will be representative of the

potential material utilization. During these earliest phases of planning and quoting this material

assumption should be sufficient to assure that a reasonable blank estimate can be found without

excessive requirements for engineering work.

Part > Formchk > Develop Part

> Geometry refers to > Lower Side of Part (radio button selection)

1 15
> Apply

Formcheck is a representation of potential deformation if the part were formed under the conditions
defined; Die Tip, ignoring the secondary forming geometry, Boundary and double attachment fills,
Addendum, draw-in reserve on the wrap surface, and a range of boundary restraint assumptions during

forming.

The resultant deformation (strain) is compared to the established limits of formability for the material
defined; whereupon a determination of relative formability can be made. Under higher values of
boundary restraint it is expected that the pari will stretch more and likely use smaller blanks, with lower
values it is expected that the part will stretch less and use larger blanks. As the part is stretched more
there is increased potential for splitting and excessive thinning, while reducing the amount of stretch
increases the potential for wrinkles and poorly formed parts; those with greater springback variation

issues.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

(free boundary) (set to optimal)

The observed blank size and forming issues (Red and Blue areas in the formcheck plot) under the
holding condition displayed when the Set to Optimal button is depressed are the likely blank size and
forming risks encountered once production intent tooling is created. While the automatic representation
of the Defined Draw Geometry will likely differ from the engineered tooling dieface it is at this time a
reasonable assumption. Applying the holding condition that results in a majority of the part surface

16 1
 e
being permanently deformed (Green in the formcheck pari) identifies a plausible draw development

issues and initial blank requirements.

Pari> Formchk Develop Pa > Outer Holding Condition > Set to Optimal

Generate material estimation for double attached process

Formcheck results provide minimum required blank that can be used for initial Blank estimation. Within

this procedure it is onlly preliminary Blank that is given, the final shape can be determined only during

incremental simulation process.

Blank > Outline > Outline > Copy From... > Pick Curve > Part > Formcheck Part > Blank Outline >

OK

Blank > Nesting and Embedding > Type: Embed: Rectangle > Apply

Note that the prices mentioned in this window represents the "Total material cost" which accounts for

the purchase price of the steel and reclaimed price of the "scrap". To assure the appropriate price for

the purchased material one should mind the values defined under the Part Stage > Materiais tab.

5420MC/ 1.10 u ni

Material 5420MC
Lubrication: "default'is loaded
Ihickness Í;; LIO mm
Pnce 0.80 Eficg
Scrap Vakie 0.200 €4kg

Show /Ecílt Material...

Define the Tooling Cost associated with the Double Attached process
Process

Plan > Process > Autoplan > Press > Select from Database > Transfer Press (with loading standard

tater, replace the press) > Create Plan

I 17
 Pr oduction Line 4PencessPlan Toohng j( Piece Cos •

Draw Region 1

Outer Trim

Complex Flange 1

Circular Hole 1

Circular Hole 2

Circular Hole 3

Plan > Add Tooling

The resulting prediction is the potential too' costs for engineering, design, and build of a die that could
perform the stamping process as described. However, to reach the process requirements described by

the "target process" may very likely be a different cost. Further editing of the process plan within the
AutoForm design file can capture the potential costs associated with the target process.

Next we will edit the process to reflect something closer to the target process.

Changes to the process plan to better reflect the intended stamping process.

• Remove Blanking operation

• Share Die Sets
• Define the process plan to exclude the use of cams
• Re-tip the part to allow for direct piercing (no cams)
• Edit process of the complex flange at header

Further refine the process to identify affect on projected costs

Prior to action within the plan, with the mouse select the small tab at the far right side of the 3D design
space window. This will open a second AutoForm-Designer area to the right of your screen. Then drag

the design from the design bar into the „header" of the second design window.

18 1
 1

Right Designer > Plan > > Trend Indication

Left Designer > Plan > Circular Hole 1 > Pierce with Cam (T-60) > RMB > No Cam

Plan > Process Plan > Circular Hole 2 > Pierce with Cam (T-60) > RMB > No Cam

Plan > Process Plan > Circular Hole 3 > Pierce with Cam (T-60) > RMB > No Cam

After any further change within the Plan, the user can track live thanges within the cost table.

1 19
LI

▪ Eregneernd 5875 1/285 2813221_ 9%05

le CNC Inxbining 51'692 13946 24876 1.5565
• De Mairgb.rerrachrhg 8'274 5989 33939 13714
11. DIeTPyout 7641 25756 12000
▪ Cast Sted 3533 5613 5884 4707
• Oen Matands 36 103 773 559
• Olhar rdsb 695 7714 2439 25564
▪ Hardering 5045 109
Addbonal Cor t
Si:charges 1716

With Autoplan and default press selection, generated press line could contamn excess operations. To

build feasible process with awareness of the final tooling cost, the user needs to manage number and

type of operations.

Select Operation within Production Line > Delete Operation

Select Operation within Production Line > Select new Operation (list of Operations below) > Drag

& drop onto operation you would like to replace

In the case of Transfer dies, the user can optimize Die Set sharing and therefore the overall size, finally

the costs. It is to keep in mind to verify results after sharing, meaning the overall size and overall weight

of Die Set — shared tools, and that accepted the result compiles with production norms.

20 1
 PrOMa .2n Qoa-r 14ece oSt,

While making the following refinements to the process plan, we will track their impact on the projected
tooling costs. We will do so „live" using the prorperties of the AutoForm interface to simulataneous
make changes to one aspect of the design while observing the changes to another. This will require the

expansion of the „right design window".

It is not necessary to perform the actual tipping of the geometry within the plan. Just remove carne
usage and warning to indicate desired manufacturing method.

Removing the cam "requirement" for the process description reduces the cost potential by several
thousands. However, doing so in the manner we have, does not necessarily mean that the process is
"feasible" or "plausible" but if a tooling process were engineered that eliminated the need for cams to
pierce those three (3) symmetrical holes a reduction on that order would be possible. Determining the
exact tooling geometry that allows the potential for this "intent" is the work of the engineering
department.

Using more advanced functions of AutoForm-ProcessPlanner we can easily determine the

"manufacturing feasibilitym of decisions such as the one we have just enabled (the elimination of cams
used for trimming or piercing, which had been automatically assigned to the process according to the

parts geometry)

Left Designer Plan > Process Plan > Directions > F-60 > Angle Check

1 21
 è, View Optoms '11) Angle Check Mode

In the angle check mode we will see highlighted the curves which are defined for trimming and piercing

operations. Each curve assigned to be trimmed using tooling along the selected trimming vector will be

highlighted according to the safety to trim established by the active standards for processing.

Typically these standard may be:

• Safe direct trimming = -10 < A < +10 degrees

• Marginal =
• Severe = 15 < A < -15

Typically manufacturing engineering would have to recommend the trimming angle limits to achieve the

desired/required product quality. For the exercise today we are concerned only with the „cost feasibility"

and not the "manufacturing feasibility".

Additionally, there is no reason (part quality or ease of manufacture) that requires that the 3 boles we

just edited should be made in the last press operation. Therefore we can safely shift those boles to a

different press operation to more closely resemble a typical stamping process. Drag and drop the boles

from F-60 to T-30.

Plan > Process Plan > F-60 > Processing Unit: Piercing Circular Hole 1 ,2, 3 > Drag & Drop in T-30

22 I
 Procucbon Une Tooling )(Piece Cost )

Draw Region 1

Outer Trim

Complex Flange 1

Circular Hole 1

Circular Hole 2

Circular Hole 3

Note: when dragging and dropping processing units press standards (rides) are fflustrated in the
Designer. Solid blue background M the various operations indicates that the placement of the
„processing unit" in that operation is acceptable, if the color is cross hatched it is acceptable but not
preferred in that operation When the background of the operation remains Grey it is unacceptable to
place the processing unit in that operation.

Observing the „right designer" we see that operation T-30 is highlighted with RED while operation F-60

is again green. Moving the processing units and therefore the work of piercing those three (3)

symmetrical holes from F-60 to T-30 reduces the cost of F-60 further. However, it results in the same

increase in cost for T-30. Moving the trimming from one operation to another is affectively cost neutral

for the entire project. The lesson learned from this is that as long as features are assigned and the

„nature" of the work being assigned is correct the precise order of that work and the placement in the

press line is not essential to predicting the potential costs. But crucial when engineering activities start

up in earnest the product and process mature; closer to serial production. For the remainder of the

exercise we will take a look at this more advanced use of AutoForm-ProcessPlanner and what can be

referred to as a „cost feasible" process plan.

1 23
 Production Line Process PI Tooling .• -

'Imiti I Overview Components Cost REiources

01"-I F-En
F-1

• Engineering

• CNC Machining

• Die Making/...nufacturing

" Die Tryout

• Cast /Steel
• Other Materiais
• Other Costs
• Hardening
Adcitional Cost
Surcharges
Total 523'852 7'; CI 126860 875-10 4C'338 4Y3:53

Further enhancement of the process to reflect this cost potential, would be to create the needed
orientation of the part to reflect the necessary changes to complete the piercing without the use of

Cams.

Reorient the part only in that operation, if possible, to pierce direct

Reorient the part in ali operations so that piercing is "direct"

Par> ip Angle > Select flat face with the 3 holes > Average Normal

Plan > Process Plan 5 Directions > F-60 > Dependent on: Part (this re-orients only the station F-60)

Repeat the step above to set ali tools to share that Orientation (if desire)

The change alters the coordinate systems for engineering outputs (this design file and any exports we
might create), but is unlikely to affect the estimated cost. Cost changes only occur if now that we have
made the changes we re-evaluate the process units applied to the features or the feature definitions

themselves. In other words, if our only concern is to estimate the cost of the process but not to
evaluate the plausibility of the process the additional effort of re-tipping the part is not needed.
However, the outputs generated by the process plan and the cost estimate are valuable outputs as the
starting point for further Draw-OP engineering and Advanced Feasibility evaluations.

Fun process description from engineering or supplier

The preliminary plan provided in the earlier parts of this exercise only contained the simplest description
of a potential manufacturing process. The part shape, general orientation requirements (double

24 1
attached), the suggestion that it may be a „drawn part" and the press line. However, once more specific
information regarding the production intent stamping process is defined we can continue to capture

that detail in out process plan and similarly in our cost prediction.

In this case we can assume that we have received back from engineering ar perhaps one of the tooling
suppliers bidding on this job a more detailed process plan (processing line-up, 2D process layout,

production bill of process, etc).

Double attached with Trim planning, as input to draw engineering

East planning
Reproduce the steps used in exercise B to create a preliminary plan of a double attached stamping
process. Use the graphical representation of the process line-up supplied above as a guide to plan the

trimming and scrap shed.

a) Import Part data:

b) Set symmetry option:

c) Define Tippping:

d) Material:

e) Formcheck:

f) Plan:

g) Blank Outline:

h) Nesting and Embedding:

ProcessPlan refinement
From the starting point of the automatically generated process plan we will refine the process to reflect
not only a reasonable assumption of process, but a reliable and transferable 3D model of the
production-intent process descrption; one which could presumably be used by 3D draw developement
method/process planners and advanced feasbility engineers to define the working space for process

engineering and simulation.

One common element of a 2D process layout (2-Dimensional or sketch of process plan) is the trim plan.
The trim plan is a needed input for 3D Draw Development and Advanced Feasibility. The trim plan in
many ways governs the possible geometry of the draw development and addendum surfaces. The
location of the trim lines, determination of developed geometry, and secondary scrap segmentation
directly affects how method planner (process planners) can engineer the tooling surfaces of the

„production intent draw".

Additbnally, the precise planning of the secondary forming operations can directly affect the type of
components used to construct the die, which affects the resource requirements for build and machining,

1 25
and therefore the engineering time needed to design the supporting tool. Which, in turn, affects the

costs. For example the use of CAMs vs. using multiple operations to create more complex flanges is

another cost relevant adjustment that can be evaluated using AutoForm-ProcessPlanner with AutoForm-

CostCalculator.

Exercise C: Process Plan detailing

Procedure
• Modify the process plan to reflect the trim plan sketch
• Modify the arder and type of processing units to minimize the use of CAMs
• Modify the arder of processing units

Plan > Process Plan > Feature: Outer Trim > Right Mouse Click: Trim Plan

Using the left mouse button (with „Pick Faces" active) select the part boundary and blank outline

according to the approximate pattern shown. This allows for the complete definition of the planned trim

outline and scrap cutting requirements as defined by the „process intent". Note that once the boundary

of the part has been so defined the number of projected cams and therefore the cost has been

adjusted. This is automatic based on the potential requirement of cam trimming. Cam trimming

requirements are a result of the specific part geometry being compared to the limits established using

the process standards.

> Left Mouse Click and Drag to preferred OP

P_ > Process Man > Feature: Scrap Piece #

Man > Process Plan > Feature: Scrap Piece # > Select and define as developed flanges in

„Header"

es > Process Pia > Feature: Complex Flange (Header) > Select and define as 2 OP [simple flange

+ CAM flange w/ filler)]

26 1
 Peature6 8-10 D-20 T-33 F-40 561 F-60 Feahres P-10 0.3) T-93 1-441 F:93 r
• Oute Trin • Outer Tnrn

Scrap Piece 1 Saap Piece 1

Ti.
Scrap Piece 2 Scrap Piece 2

Scrap Piece 3 Scrap Piece 3

7.
Scrap Piece 4 &reg) Piece 4

Saap nem 5 Saap Piece 5

7.
SCreci Rem 6 Scap Peite 6

5crap Piece 7 Scrap Piece 7

7.
Saap Piece 8 5cr4p Prece 3

Scrap Piece 9 Scrap Piece 9

Ruo Pece 10 Scrap Piece 10

&rapinem 11 Soe() Pece 11

Scrap Piece 12 Scrap Piece 12

Scrap Piece 13 &Me Piece 13

Saap Piece 19 Ume Piece 14

&mei Rece 15 Scrap Piece 15

Scrap Piece 19 Seio Piece Is

Saap Piece 13 Scrap PleCe LEI

Scmo Pese 17 Scrap Piece 17

Seno Piece Scrap Piece 16

Initially, spitting the single feature of the „outer trim" into several features will look to drive up the

tooling cost; this is core to the computational method built into AutoForm-CostCalculator features drive

,,work" into the tooling process. Work requires tooling elements, each tooling element expends material

resources and labor resources. As the process is more discretely defined the inventory of tooling

elements will typically increase, but as we can see in this example defining the process to accurately

support the process we again see the prices adjust back to lower leveis (in this case the number of cams

again must be reduced).

This brings us to a critica point in our practice of "predicting" potential costs. The costs we estimated

earlier with the most highly Automated levei of user interaction showed significant reductions as the

process was simplified. Those predicted prices went up to higher leveis, once we further refined the

process, then corrected back down.

In addition, the user can replace or edit generic blank outline with more accurate one. This is relevant

when refining the process in desire to optimize tooling costs.

fim Plan Editor

Segmenta

Chck eito pomts to add a segmenl.

Draw-In

tdt

SymmetrY

1 27
The costs achievable will be greatly affected by the engineering work to be done and therefore the
validity of these cost predictions are something that can be infinitely questioned. However, the basis

cost and relative reliability of the cost prediction is still subject to human reliability when executing the
process as planned, likely there are further efficiencies and potential pitfalls which may occur. Reality
after ali, will override even the most detailed plans. AutoForm-CostCalculator gave users the ability to

arrive at reasonable estimations for tooling requirements based on the part and likely processes.

Any of these costs has the potential to become valid. Given enough luck and creativity it is possible that

the most costly process could still be completed for the cost of the simplest process. There is no
predictive indicator for luck and increased inefficiency that our most talented engineers and

tradespeople can achieve. However, if we projected for resource expenditure much lower than our
lowest cost process it is quite likely that misfortune and merely average execution could lead to a severe

over-expenditure of resources and in the end a losing project.

Piece costs for the stam•in• .rocess: Exercise C

Plan > Process Plan > Piece Cost > + Add Piece Cost

"rifarPiece °511""

+ Add Piece Cost

Calculate die Costs per Part

28 1
•
P ockiction Une P ocess Plan Piece Cost

O Ç'Vith multiple parts pre.sent, the piece cost is referring to the whole.

e Tooling 16.7% 1.21 €

e Part Material 33.5% 2.44 €
e Scrap Material 19,4 °AI 1.41 €
111 Reject Material 0.9 % 0.06 €
ie Production Une 7.2% 0.52 €
e Reworked Parts 13.8 °A, 1.00 €
e Shipping 8,6% 0.62 €
Total Cost per Piece: 7.27 C

Total Production Volume 500000 FT

Robustness Levei Medium o

Reject Rate 2.0 '2.0 o
P Tool and Maintenance Cost o
Blank Material Cost o
D Production Une Cost o
• Rework Cost o
• Shipping Cost o

29
Production cost per piece (or Piece Cost) is a function of the:

• Three Quick input values:

o Total production volume
o Robustness levei
o Reject rate
• Tool and Maintenance cost
• Blank material cost (subtracted by reclaimed value of scraped steel)
• Production line cost (estimated overall run time and downtime)
• Rework cost (additional cost for pieces that need minor rework outside the press and do not
qualify for scrap metal)
• Shipping cost (externai shipping)

To assist with computations to predict the potential piece cost AutoForm-ProcessPlanner gives the user
the ability to define these inputs. Many of which are established initially by the tooling and process

standards contained in the users installation of AutoForm.

To obtain more realistic piece cost, check and alter:

Blank utilization (preferably from Blank stage)

Press hourly rate (either directly within Piece Cost; or exchange the press; or change press
hourly rate within Production Line)
• Define correct values for Rework Cost
• Shipping — is it included into company's

Reporting the b-pillar double attached process: Exercise C

Open the calculated simulation:

Application Menu > Reopen

Start the ReportManager using the function Start Reporting of the drop-down menu in the Design Bar.

done the _ _

Make Restart ttom and ot

Chain Parent ResuIts
Recalculate AH
Reference Design
Start Repor ting Ctrl +R

The ReportManager opens.

30 I
 Welcome to AF-ReportManager

New Template
Create a new Template File

em
lk Open Template
Open file browser to Oport a template file from did<
k.....4a1
Sr

Recentiy Used Templates

The templates are stored in the folder ...WProgramDataWAuto- FormWAFplusWR5WtemplatesWreport

during installation for the ReportManager. These templates can be either directly be applied for report

generation or be used as templates for your own reports.

Having clicked the Open Template button, this folder is automatically opened and you select the
template Simulation_Report_Template.afr. At start the ReportManager is in Template Mode. This mode
allows for the modification of the currently used template.

„ .

Exerase A - Template

T.,'”PildeMode
All Pages Ir Page

Page
al"~e~
0 the variables are to be extracted from the current design file to adapt the template, they have to be
updated first. The following Update functions are available:

31
 Update Ali: Ali simulation variables and views are updated for the current simulation.

it Update Variables: Only the simulation variables are updated for the current simulation.

Content
After the update of the template you can modify individual variables of the template. The

updated simulation variables and views are available on the Content page of the ReportManager.

In this exercise the template remains unchanged. Generate an actual report for the simulation:

Svrttdi to Report
Use Switch to Report button to switch to Report Mode.

To use ali chapters of the template for the report, click the button

Generate ali Chapters to generate the report.

ReportManager > Application Toolbar > Reporting > Generate ali

Chapters
The generation of the report takes some time, because ali simulation variables and main views have to

be updated and template pages have to be reproduced depending on the number of occurrences in this

report.

32 1
 DEM: Documentation Narre
Venicle Program. Sheet metaI formo; simuianon ~irem
Project Name O. $3402013 pa9.9 5 Si

Caprum Dramog 0-20 ITS?

Pau Faure i FLO

.!
et

de 0, 0.10, , *A
WS Tm, ~lb
02 01 01 —

le. .. ma ... tom um -- .... —. .. •— —

Ma o... a—
--
." ~~1.110~

//

A detailed description of the ReportManager functions is available in the Software Manual which can be

started from the ReportManager-user interface by pressing the function key Fl.

1 33
 e

AutoForm Plus R5.2

Planning and Bitkling

Part II

e 2014 AutoForm Engineering GmbH, Switzerland.

I 1
e
COPYRIGHT

Dieses Dokument enthãlt AutoForm-vertrauliche Informationen und darf

Dritten weder gezeigt, übermittelt noch in anderer Weise zugãnglich
gemacht oder reproduziert werden. Dies gilt auch für Teile des Dokumentes.

"AutoForm" und andere Markenzeichen, die unter www.autoform.com

aufge- listet sind oder Handelsnamen, die in der Software oder zugehbrigen
Doku- menten erscheinen, sind Markenzeichen oder registrierte
Markenzeichen der AutoForm Engineering GmbH. Markenzeichen,
Handelsnamen, Produktnamen und Logos Dritter sind Markenzeichen oder
registrierte Markenzeichen der entsprechenden Eigentümer.

AutoForm Engineering GmbH besitzt und nutzt Patente und

Patentanmeldungen, die unter www.autoform.com aufgelistet sind.

Die Informationen in diesem Dokument kbrinen jederzeit und ohne

Vorankündi- gung von AutoForm Engineering GmbH geãndert werden.

i0 2013 AutoForm Engineering GmbH, Schweiz.

This document contains AutoForm confidential information and may not be

reproduced, shown, made available, transmitted, disclosed or communicated
in any manner to any third parties.

"AutoForm" and other trademarks listed under www.autoform.com or trade

names contained in this documentation or the Software are trademarks or
regis- tered trademarks of AutoForm Engineering GmbH. Third party
trademarks,
trade names, product names and logos may be the trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective owners.

AutoForm Engineering GmbH owns and practices various patents and

patent applications that are listed on its website www.autoform.com.

The information contained in this document may be subject to change

without notice by AutoForm Engineering GmbH.

2013 AutoForm Engineering GmbH, Switzerland.

2 1
Cost estimate progressive die

Budgetary costs planning for progressive die part

Budgetary planning using AutoForm-CostCalculator whether the product is planned as a progressive die

or transfer die is fundamentally the same. We will rely on the automatic feature detection and user

definition of the production line to drive much of the basic cost planning.

One difference between transfer and progressive die and products that are produced in progressive dies

with very often use a very different sequence of processing steps to reach the final geometry. Complex
flanges that might be completed using CAM flange with Filler Post, may instead be completed using a

series of forms and bencts distributed over a number of OP's. Holes that lie on steep or vertical surfaces

may be pierced in their as part of a developed blank then put into finished position only after another

sequence of forming operations.

A direct rules-based application of standards could not definitively predict a „standard" process for many
progressive dies. Instead, AutoForm-ProcessPlanner with CostCalculator will still detect the features in

order to compute the potential costs, however with progressive dies we may see greater amount of

difference once the „production intent process" is fully described in the process plan.

A point of view widely held in the industry is that in order to predict the process and costs of a

progressive die that one needs to develop a complete 3D strip layout—and engineering CAD model of
the complete part, progressive web and carrier design, and 3D CAD geometry for ali intermediate sheet
metal forms. However, this is a risky way of conducting business as completing the 3D model of the

strip-layout is the bulk of the engineering effort to design the tool. Often time requiring many hours of
CAD effort. This is what one would identify as "work-at-risk" engineering effort toward winning a project
with little or no hope of getting paid for it. Many tool shops who follow this practice quote 3-5% win
rates for such projects; Driving up the cost of ali the actual paid work that they do.

In the following exercises we will estimate the cost of progressive dies with no more information than

used to predict the transfer dies already completed.

Exercise D: Progressive tool material and tool cost

For the next exercise we consider a part slated for a higher production volume capable press. Specifically
a part that is likely to be produced as a progressive die part. The process will be cost planned to run in
a progressive press using coil feed. A generic progressive press will be used for initial planning, later if

the production press specification is known more detailed cost plans could be estimated.

3
e
Requirement
• CAD part
• Strip Concept
• Production Une
• Blank estimate
• Progressive strip concept

4
Procedure
Similar to the procedure used for the transfer part the quotation/planning process begins with the

import of the part data. After defining the part, blank size computations can be made, followed by

process planning, tool cost estimation, and piece costs.

• Define part
• Blank size
• Define process
• Tool cost
• Piece cost

Once a budgetary cost estimation is made it can be refined to reflect the concept for the prodution

tooling, ali without the requirement of further CAD modeling often used by some as the basis for

beginning the cost planning of progressive dies.

Define the art

Pari> > Part Geometry > Import Part > Import Parts > Exercise_Digs

5
 > > [LMB: large flat surface with long emboss]

- > > Automatic Tipping

Material > Add Material > Select a material to import > Europe > Steels_conventional_HSS >

HX340LAD.mtb > Open > Add Material Editor > Thickness: 1.30 mm > OK

Blank Size and Blank Cost

Pad > Formchk > Add Strip Concept

1.
2.1

. „„. .
1, Proje(-t )1; import(Tip )( Modify &Material Formchk

. . .

Add Formcheck
Check basic part formability and estimate minimum blank for
, draym and crashform parts
•41IP

+ Add Strip Concept

Estimate minimum blank for proa de parts and define strip
,i6 e/
"/ concept

Developed Blan > Geometry Refers to: Lower Side of Pad > Apply

=E= > Nesting > Type: One Shape: Single Center Carrier > Apply

6
Par!> Formch Strip Concep > Pad Setup > Copy to Tipping

Another difference between the progressive die material planning and the material planning for transfer

or tandem press configurations is that the coil material rolling direction is the same as the production
press line feed direction. In this case it is essential that if the nesting and strip concept is defined for a

particular material consumption or part orientation, that the process plan also use the same assume
orientation. With transfer dies this is not always the case, as the blanks can be rotated quite easily and

independent of the coil feed direction. The copy to tipping button ensures that the coil orientation and

production line flow are the same.

Define plan
Plan > Process: Prog Die > Press > Select from Database > Progdie Press > Create Plan

Plan > ool'ng > Add Tooling

Plan > rit > Add Piece Cost

7
 Overineve Componet Cost Resources

E Ergneenng
fie CNC Machnng
ei De Making
• Try-Out
le Tool MaterS
• Other
Hardettg
23.4%
17.3%
na %
8.6 "/,
2.1%
27.5%
0.1%
24715 É
18260€
22339€
9059
2183€
29100 €
126€
• •bolou
•Part Matenal
•
•

•
e showg

TotalProduction Volume

Robustna-s Levei ed;um

This early predicted tooling cost is based on the „default" production press as defined at the

initialization of the process plan. With the selection of the press from the installed library rules
20.9%
12.3%
Scan Matenal 22.3 %
Reject Material 0.3 %
E Producton une 16.6%
Reworked Paris 6.1%
21.5%
Total Cost per Piece
017€
010€
0.18 É
0.09
0.19 €
0.05 C
018€
032

governing the definition of processing units to the detected product features is automatic.

ft is clear that at this time we could define this process plan as potentially "Cost Feasible" but it is not

certain and maybe unlikely that the process is "Process Feasible" and even more unlikely to be

"Manufacturing Feasible" or robust. To reach those leveis of confidence would require much higher

leveis of engineering investment. But at this time given the amount of information required to be

entered.

Exercise E: Plan editing

Review of the "Autoplan" will likely reveal larger significant differences between the processing

sequences applied to detected features and the way an experienced method planner would have elected

to process the same part. Space utilization and operation allocation will likely be different than a

designer or planner would choose. This is not an issue; user can easily opt in/out of the process

determined through AutoPlanning and define their own editing of the process plan and feature

detection.

Production une
The default production line used is a progressive press with a bed size of Xmm * Ymm. Given the size of

the part and the approximate pitch as computed by the material estimate this results in a progressive

die with enough room for N number of operations. The user is not required to leave the process as

determined through Autoplan, but is instead expected to consider

The default press used in this instance resulted in N *(available press bed/ pitch) = max OPs + 1

When the number of OP is reduced we see the cost go down dramatically (each „empty" OP has a basic

cost associated which is equivalent to the material consumption in the required tooling to fill that space.

Therefore, having a realistic number of operations is essential.

8
 Production Une > 0P90 > Delete OP (repeat until lest OP is OP100)

Process plan editing

With detailed progressive die parts the order of forming is quite often based on preferences and the
experience of the individual designer, and not a any clear, objective, geometry based determinations.
The same part given to several designers will most certainly result in several differing process plans
(method plans). Because of that the precise work order and definition of the features can be very

different from person to person and job to job. The same is with AutoForm-ProcessPlanner and how the
detected features are defined for their „potential" process plans. In most cases what is consistent is the
number of holes, length of trim line on the part, and the number of flanges. What will not be consistent

and will require some manual manipulation is the order of flanges and the use of cams.

For the exercise we find that the Autoplan function has detected and assign the product features as

shown:

This plan is on review not appropriate as the use of CAMS within a progressive line is sub-optimal and

would be avoided by most method planners.

X Y

ele IR

,
,„, ,s,
TO P View

9
 Elevation view

:laV• Re9011 1

Cuter Tnre

',ode flange I

5mple Mame 2

C~CX Perlr
Sccoated Holt 1

,.^Natedelde 2
•rgated Holt 3

-,aped lide 1

The intent is that all work should be done direct without CAMs.

To alter the process, we will re-define the complex flanges as a series of simple flanges distributed over

a number of processes to only use the direct press action

All holes will be defined as direct piercing operations distributed to Ops preceding the forming of the

complex flanges.

Edit Feature

Simple Flange 3

Define Regions
Reset jr In
Radius z'eset ,r In
Part jr In
Feature Properties Length = 23.67mm

OK Calcei

10 1
 e

1 11
Exercise F: Planning and Bidding refinement
The process plan automatically determined by AutoForm-ProcessPlanner is no replacement for an
experienced Die Processor or Method Planner. The intent of the automatic detection within AutoForm-

ProcessPlanner is to assure that most product features are detected and that some „processing units"
are assigned. However in the last exercise we already saw that the preliminary process determined
provided a „reasonable cost feasible" process plan. That the die elements estimated by the prediction we
not exactly the correct die elements to be used in producing that part, but did allow for enough

resources (materiais and time) that once a more appropriate process was determined and input by the

user we 1-ias sufficiently dose estimates to work with.

In the case of progressive tooling this is even more evident. Many parts that would be run in
progressive dies may , in fact be processed using many more operations (OP) than AutoForm-
ProcessPlanner might predict. It also tends to predict more complex forming methods than an
experienced die processor or method planner might employ. For example, using „forming with cam and

filler cam" instead of breaking the work out over a number of adjacent forming operations (OP).

This still is a great improvement over many conventional quoting methods where-in cost is assumed to

be a flat multiplier based on the number of operations and simple factors for the various part features.
Our method accounts for the resources to engineer, build, and make the supporting tooling for the part
features and therefore is more likely to be able to accommodate and recognize those processes that

require more or less resources than others.

Given more time to define...

The assumption that ali this shape is formed in the same hit is not credible or reasonable. But as we
found in our earlier example to arrive at a „cost feasible" process plan it was essential that we captured
the features, but the precise order of operation and sequence was not criticai to determining the
probable costs. What will need to be adjusted is to define the flanges in a manner that is more likely to

support their stamping process.

12 1
 o

ri

Fi4A_52

-3o 9-0 9,3 9c knp

r

/1
Z\ctnk— it\

g ÀQVC12- fbne

1 13
In the case of the flanging with cam and filler cam, to define that process differently may not incur

additional costs. In fact, it is likely that defining the same feature in two different operations without any

cams may often reduce the resource requirements.

Nati > Process Plan > Select Features [Simple Flange 1,2 & Complex Flange 1] > Delete

Add Feature > New Feature > Simple Flange > Select surfaces flanged tab A > OK

Add Feature > New Feature > Simple Flange > Select surfaces flanged tab B > OK

Add Feature > New Feature > Simple Flange > Select surfaces flanged tab C > OK

Add Feature > New Feature > Simple Flange > Select surface flange area A-B tab A > OK

Flanged Tab A Flanged Tab B Flanged Tab C Connector A-B

-,. O

Flange down in F-40 Flange down in F-30 Flange down in F-50 Flanged down in F-60
Bundle Flange tabs A, B, and Flanged A-B into a single feature „group"

Process Plan > Highlight Simple Flanges 2,3,4 (hold shift) > Context menu > Create Bundle

14 1
Set ali holes in appropriate operations and define as „developed processing". This indicates to the

AutoForm-ProcessPlanner and AutoForm-CostCalculator that the holes will should not use cams and that

when engineers carry on with the tooling engineering and design that the holes can be pierced in earlier

operations using the direct press action.

Plan > Process Plan > Highlight ali holes > Context menu > Developed Processing

ad. View Options

Elongated Hole 1

Elongated Hole 2 No Cam

Cam
Ebngated Role 3
Cari and Ffiler
Shaped Hole 1
Share
Simple Flange 1.
Unshare '
V Bundle 1
Assion To Direction
Simple Fiange 2
Developed Processing
Simple Flange 3
#'
Simple Flange 4
Delete

Hide Viarnina Once

> Process Plan

> Piercing processing units > Drag and drop to B-10 (blanking)

The elimination of the cams from the assumed process will have dramatic effect on the cost of a tool

this size. To review and evaluate the potential cost of this die, proceed to the Tooling Cost page of the

Plan Stage.

ooling Overview

fá
fficricht.or 210 ,Pin.
ellooro 7% tia •
7.6,„
e... L4, 3.4
Rute 16-9% um
Ili~o IV IS'

1 15
Apêndice A

Exercício 1

Objetivo: Usar o formcheck para rapidamente avaliar a geometria da peça quanto a sua factibilidade e
utilizar as ferramentas do blank stage como nesting e embedding para gerenciar a distribuição da
geometria desenvolvida e aperfeiçoar o dimensionamento do blank.

Abrir o AutoForm e iniciar um novo projeto — New design.

Define the art

es› mport > Part Geometry > Import Part > Import Parts > Exerciciol_NE.igs

Observe aqui a variedade de formatos nativos que podem ser diretamente importados.

Observe que a peça importada está com a espessura, para a sequência no projeto é necessário remover
um dos lados da geometria. Para esse caso a geometria utilizada como referência será a face interna
(lower path. Isso pode ser feito utilizando a seguinte sequência.

Part > i mpo > Part Geometry > Select one of the lower faces > App. Toolbar > Expand Path

Selection to Edge

1•00

e Select Ci

22$ Expand Patch Seiection to Soe

Exporá Patch Selection ri Rackus Med/0n

16
 > mpo > Part Geometry > Select one of the lower faces > App. Toolbar > Invert Path

Selection

e> MpO > Part Geometry > Unused faces > In > Apply

Com a espessura removida da geometria, nenhuma alteração adicional é necessária para a sequência.

Caso sejam necessárias alterações, elas podem ser feitas nas abas f///et e modifr que possuem algumas

ferramentas específicas para isso, lembrando que alterações nessa fase são alterações na geometria do

produto final e não alterações do processo.

Part > > Automatic Tipping

O automatic ttpping usa os seguintes critérios para a definição do balanço da peça:

• Origin: Center of gravity (A origem do Sistema de Coordenadas da prensa é deslocada para o

centro de gravidade da peça).
• Tipping: Min Backdraft (Menor quantidade possível de contra saídas)
• Press Flow: Minimum Pitch (Posicionamento visando obter o menor passo possível)

Fixado o balanço, falta ainda selecionar o material empregado na peça em análise.

Part > Material > Add Material > Select a material to import > Europe > Steels_for_cold_forming >

DC04.mtb > Open > Add Material Editor > Thickness: 1.00 mm > OK

Depois de definido o material, os preços por kg do material cru e de revenda de retalhos podem ser
alterados. Estes valores podem ser também definidos no Die-face standard.
0(04/1.00 turre

mate-ed 0004
lubration: "dehriN.led

Prce

Com todos os passos anteriores, pode-se enfim chegar à janela formcheck onde serão realizadas pré-
avaliações da geometria da peça.

Part > Formchk > Add Formcheck

Part > Formchk > Developed Pa > Geometry Refers to: Lower Side of Part > Apply

1 17
Nesta etapa já é possível observar pelo diagrama do blank desenvolvido que há uma sobreposição das
abas, o que indica que o produto não pode ser fabricado desta maneira. Nesta etapa seria necessária a
comunicação com o setor responsável e solicitada a alteração do produto.
Para a sequência do exercício essa alteração já foi feita.
Voltemos para a aba Import.

mpo Part geomet > [.MB: Exercisel_NE.igs]: Replace Part > Select Exercisel_NE_mod

> Trz > 221=2 > [LMB: Unused Faces]: Reset Unused Faces
Fieset Unuserá FUCCI

Repetir o procedimento para remover a espessura:

Part > 17= > Part Geometry > Select one of the lower faces > App. Toolbar > Expand Path

Selection to Edge

18 1
Part > > Part Geometry > Select one of the lower faces > App. Toolbar > Invert Path

Selection

Part > > Part Geometry > Unused faces > In

Agora basta voltar para o FormChk e atualizar os cálculos.

Part > i=z2 > Developed Part > Apply

Agora que a peça a principio é factível, podemos avaliar os demais resultados de saída do formcheck.
Como o Feasibllity Diagram que mostra a relação entre regiões com estiramento suficiente, insuficiente,
rugas excessivas e regiões de ruptura. O peso estimado do blank desenvolvido é mostrado na aba
Estimated Weights
O formcheck realiza cálculos iniciais de estiramento da chapa variando o fator de restrição (Outer
holding condition) de 0% (crashform) a 100% (locked) e possibilita a avaliação dos resultados em função
desta restrição. Peças que mesmo com restrição 0, ainda apresentam regiões de ruptura devem ser
consideradas criticas e, uma simulação incremental completa deve ser realizada para verificar e dizer se
uma alteração no processo pode resolver o problema, caso contrário uma alteração de produto deve ser
sugerida. O mesmo vale para peças que mesmo em uma situação locked apresentem regiões com rugas
excessivas.

0.9

0.9

'e Ifeiphts
Pot WC9ht

Ce ie Ser?”

Oiteretkipergritkrt

SSO
Cr.* Ssetch

FridniCoeffident 0.15a

1 19
e
A opção Set to Optimal busca maximizar a região com "área verde" em relação as outras três regiões

avaliadas no diagrama.

Retorne para a restrição zero, cuja resultante considera o maior blank e na aba blank do Autoform
defina o blank outline.

Outline > Copy from... > Formcheck part > Blank outline > Ok

Automaticamente são mostrados os valores de preços e massa do blank e taxa de utilização.

250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 MIO 150 200

WeightS and PenCel

O.683

53.7%

O botão Nesfing and Embedding habilita algumas ferramentas que podem ser utilizadas para maximizar
a utilização de material, permitindo, entre outras coisas, definir a disposição do blank outline na bobina
por exemplo.

Big button >

- Nte RE ei 12 t t £3 It

Embai: Rectangle

Coa
mann imq
359.00 mm
Shape
proba 0.40 mr
Onennenn 2600. :
ned• 380 si,, —iLidaalrr

Na opção Embed, pode-se definir uma entre cinco opções do blank outline, inserido em 5 perfis pré-
definidos. Retangular, paralelograma, trapezoidal simétrico, trapezoidal irregular e arco. Nas opções da

20 1
região de baixo, podemos definir a distância até a margem da bobina, largura da bobina, entre outras
coisas.

ti
11,VIR AI É ti ti t, .esit - Nega in
111
/1 ti ff. • 1/ II AIS

set
gemi. el•••
peg -

s.

•44..

Já a opção Nest disponibiliza algumas opções de distribuição do bank outline em uma bobina, visando
maximizar a taxa de utilização da mesma.

, 19111511€ ' n t. l fl&e • Len ffl rCi a 9.

Pot Nen
No,/ nne One lildwd, [Me ars Onn ilexm
as a...6e • tb,R-fresd
Cot CM 1.11 Coa
•teiin
reirt atql Wtn.
shapir ampa Sleaptt

Net 3.21:9
Second - handl 511.4•E 5.0.0.1
~Si
~lana OWasur nwillten n2i•
14ei res 01,7orm .<,57nn 042.007.2
a!~ XIV etarkFl.

Exercício 2

Abrir um novo projeto.

Define tart
> > Part Geometry > Import Part > Import Parts > Exercicio2_NE.CatPart

Definir o Tip e o material:

Part > > Automatic Tipping

Part > Material > Add Material > Select a material to import > Europe > Steels_advanced_HSS>

HCT600T.mtb > Open > Add Material Editor > Thickness: L20 mm > OK

1 21
 Menotti HCT600T R

Lubdullon: "defaultis kiaded

Mei:Ines ee 1.29 mrn t

Price 0.30 €eleg

Scrap 14,1ue :

Show fEtitMa&

Formchk > Add Formcheck

Formchk Developed Pa > Geometry Refers to: Lower Side of Part > Apply

> Copy from... > Formcheck part > Blank outline > Ok

300

200

100

200

300

400 000 200 00 0 000 303 300 003

Halliaarnalem

Pnces
22, 9.332. 3
UL*.r.r, "S

Blank > Big button Nesting and Embedding

22 1
 8! ere vta

400

200

200

100

400
:159 29:
-200 O 200 400

FICT600T/L23 men

are
v %Veiares and Piteis
Pire 0.919 kg dane. 1.21949 co L2194
Pnce: 0.95511 Utinisson: 75.4%

e praline
svnnetry
°eine
oso ffin '?

Riflais leeLl""

> Coto Ores / Cendre/e% Unes

T,Pe El H lê /Cl KC Cl Kl
Vero
Embed Are
Cedi
Mana

Share

Odre.
*enema, 20 r -

Reis 1.59.29rnm

Cot

emes /Vem

Agora para podermos comparar os resultados, vamos criar uma cópia do design até aqui e editar o
formcheck.

ppplication toolba > Drop down menu: Clone the Design

O "esti

'
_
Ca +O

riakeoeotztfronEr4of

Cl-an Parem. Resuit:

Secalculate AI

Reference Denn

strtRepxbng adia

Vamos então voltar para a aba Pad e fazer algumas alterações:

Part > Formchk > Define Draw Geomet > Secondary Forming Areas: > In

I 23
Adicione as superfícies indicadas na imagem no campo Secondary Fonning Áreas.

• Secondary •orrning
Se(ray iarning Arcas Jr. 1,1,a'
Vegity • Sb* Seraldif y Ferir!, ~5

Boundary Fill > Generate Wrap Surface > Generate

Wrap > Single Curved Orientation > 90 0

Complexity > 0.800 Shift > 6.00 mm

Draw-In Reserve > 10.00 mm Addendum > Generate

Apply

Part > Formchk Develop Pa > Apply

Avance para a aba do blank e substitua o blank outline com a linha nova:

Outline > Copy from... > Formcheck part > Blank outline > Ok

24
Com o auxilio da função Split vlew é possível visualizar as diferenças entre a simulação com e sem a
cabeça de repuxo estimada.

Application Toolbar indo > Two vertical views

Application Toolbar ynchronization > Synchronize camera and coordinate system

Novamente use a função clone design para uma terceira comparação:

ppplication toolba > Drop down menu: Clone the Design

> Symmetry & Part Type > Half input, double attached, symmetrical

> Symmetry & Pad Type > Define > Parallel to YZ-Plane > Swap

> Tip Angle > X-90, Y-85, Z-85

25
ge >E> Position > Distance > Plane to Nearest Pad > 20mm
Na aba formcheck, delete o antigo clicando no X no canto superior direito e adicione um novo:
Adicione novamente as flanges ao campo Secondary Forming Areas:

a› Formchk Define Draw Geometry > Secondary Forming Areas: > In

Boundary Fill > Generate Double Fill > Generate

Wrap Surface > Generate Wrap > Single Curved

Orientation > Automatic Complexity > 0.800

Shift > 6.00 mm Draw-In > Reserve 70.00 mm

Addendum > Generate

Apply

O Draw-in reserve foi aumentado para suprir a flange incluída no campo Secondary Forming Arcas,
limitando o blank.

e› Formchk Developed Pa > Geometry Refers to: Lower Side of Part > Apply

26 1
Com este Ultimo modelo vá para a etapa Plan:

Plan > In* Action Draw, Trim, Measuremen Create Plan

Manualmente, adicione uma operação de Trim e 3 operações de forma, montando a linha de operações
mostrada abaixo.

0-20 T-70 7-40 F-50 F-70

= r = r

Ao passar para a página do ProccessPlan a disposição do processo mostrará algo semelhante a figura.

,euret .D,W T-23 P-40 F- 5,3 FO

OUter Trirn
Corplew FUN. I
O:~ nane 2
Orcukr H* I
Crcular Hdle 2
CnuLar Mc 3
acidar Me 4
OTO.1~ 5
Creia Mak 6
Orculer Me 7

Ret.-uno...H*

Pode-se observar que foram detectadas automaticamente as flanges que são feitas na lateral da peça,
porém estas não foram definidas para operações pois o plano automático criado não continha
operações de forma (SAD, Trim, Measu.). As flanges feitas de cima para baixo (flangin up) precisam ser
adicionadas manualmente.

27
e

> Process Plan > + Feature > Surface features > Simple Flange > Ok

Em seguida dê um duplo dique na feature criada "Simple Flange 1" e defina as regiões de forma e raio.

Ao tentar atribuir o raio, verá que toda a região é formada por uma só superfície e não conseguimos
atribuir corretamente às faces, tornando-se necessário retornar a página Modify da aba Part, para que a
superfície seja trimada.

e› Modify Add trim with Line > Adicione a linha > Apply

28
De volta a janela Plan, dique com o botao direito do mouse em cima na opção Outer Trim e selecione a
opção Trim Plan para fazer a segmentação dos retalhos conforme figura abaixo.

Verifique a distribuição dos recortes e caso algum esteja fora da operação correta, o reposicione.

Na linha da Proccess Unit da Feature "Complex Flangel" dique com o botão direito na coluna da
operação F-50 e selecione a opção Flanging. Repita o Processo na linha da Feature "Complex Flange 2"
na coluna F-60. Na interseção da linha da "Simple Flange 1" com a coluna da F-70 selecione a opção
"Flange Up".

Na aba tooling, ao clicar no botão Add Tooling o preço do ferramental é calculado, levando em
consideração os standards "tooling cost" e "press standard" pré-definidos.

1 29
 411

0 With anui Forts metro, the per. tosto 'emano to 8,5'e

illOk
• Toohng 25.1%
150k le Pad Malerra 23-4%
• Scran Matenal 5.5%
120k
• i"...„„,s 0.6%
908 14.5
• Reworked Parts 17.1%
601t
▪ Si".PP^O 7.3%
301c Total Cort per 191e

ToM1ProductIon *lune 50(117:

T-411 F-SO 140 1.70 M-8
Robustness lerei Medarn
37936 155772 132234 18291 10211 37059 O
Reme-11MM

E na aba Piece Cost, o custo por peça produzida é calculado levando em consideração os dois standards
já citados, além do standard "Process plan".

Os dados e números gerados até aqui foram calculados com base em um processo montado de forma
automática pelo software, que nem sempre será o processo executado na prática. Assim sendo, pode-se
realizar alterações e edições de modo a aprimorar o processo empregado e assim trazer os números do
orçamento o mais próximo possível da realidade.

Começando pelos cortes segmentados nas operações T-30 e T-40, nota-se que alguns deles foram
designados para serem feitos com cunha devido ao ângulo em que a linha se encontra, mas deve-se
lembrar de que o software não pode identificar se aquele recorte será feito na posição em que está ou
se será feito um recorte desenvolvido, o que eliminaria a necessidade das cunhas. Este tipo de detalhe
ainda requer a experiência do processista na hora de executar o plano de métodos e, por consequência,
orçamento.
Feaora, '4 0-70 T-30 T-40 1-50 F40 F-70 M435

ao Mece La
scrap Roce 2
Er No Cem
Sota La Can
@Rec5 4 Cais an:IFC,!ef
Sem Peco 5 La Share
Soma Piece 6 Unshare
Soai Roce 7 La A208r TO Oceano
Sato PiscoS Devekriederocemrg
Somo Roce 9 La #
saap Rece 10 G
-" Odete
Sara Roce La fale Seanno Onze
Saao Peco 12
M Orai* i‘na,,~
Soma Mew 13 ta
La
SQapPtca 15 La
Saco RIca 16 La
Ccauar bo:e I
Os atar eor

Pode-se realizar uma verificação "Live" dos efeitos que as alterações no processo causam no custo do
ferramental. Para isso abra a janela de comandos extra do AutoForm (imagem) e arraste o arquivo que

30 1
 e
se está trabalhando para ela. Assim, coloque a primeira janela de opções do AF na página "Process Plan"
e a segunda na página "Tooling", aba Cost.

Na aba Cost, é habilitado um botão no canto inferior chamado "Trend Indication", este botão, ao ser
acionado, grava os valores atuais de custo como referência, e todas as alterações realizadas no processo
fornecem resultados de custo balizados por esta referência, conforme mostra a figura.

Engenhana 816861 8
Plano de .0rnutaato 747:1
Projeto d eto en 3131 4892 4
Construct de !sopor 3437 1
Progratrac..a 20 e 3) 3661 1
~gen CNC 8143 8
Construcao..Ferraments 769 4
Prensa de Tryout 4010 1
Fumado / Aço 3031 _3
Outros Mata 589
Outros Custos 3164 3
Têmpera
Adeitteeal Coat
Strcharges 653

A cor verde indica redução de custos, e a vermelha aumento, ao passar o cursor do mouse sobre o valor
o número (aumento ou diminuição) é indicado.

1 31
e

Pode-se também atribuis as flanges para a operação F-50, e voltando a página Production LMe
eliminar as operações F-60 e F-70.

I Pz

TnsertPrers nner -,r. •

Os custos são calculados com base no tipo de feature, nos perímetros, áreas e características de
cada um cruzando com o banco de dados de custo e produtividade do cliente.

Ao clicar duas vezes sobre a feature, uma nova janela se abrirá com as propriedades geométricas da
mesma, como mostra a figura abaixo. E ao clicar com o botão direito -> Edit: características sobre a

32 1
 construção são mostradas e podem ser editadas, como tipo de material, quantidade de horas
computadas, entre outras.

&IR ~casam IMat 1 Inence •

versa de Peracxe
Crermenento 293.59 nen
Mentira 795.26mm
Part Rema 483.67mm

• Futura Properties
armee., riencrm I le Matriz de Remeto
Ferre Funddo Coam e 1 (GG:5C-1M5. etc )
• Prenes-Chnaas (sem Marota Puede:kr Notei Cia:Se 2 (GGG 50 t
mleEterriiiffl
Aço %mede Cisme 3 (45-60, etc.)
Aço Perrament,de Ba, sse 2 (St 52-3, etc-)
415.96 nen
Aço Ferranenp de Se ..Ora I (C 45, etc.)
459.44m
tr Utak;
Sermeetrar PI Preces si* someeN ~na

re~iter•

Ok ItanWen"

1 33