Bend Order in Sheetmetal

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233222153
Automatic determination of bending sequences for sheet

metal parts with parallel bends
Article in International Journal of Production Research · September 2003

DOI: 10.1080/0020754031000095158
CITATIONS READS
24 1,626
5 authors, including:
Carlos Rico S. Mateos

University of Oviedo University of Oviedo
71 PUBLICATIONS 229 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 165 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Eduardo Cuesta Gonzalo Valiño

University of Oviedo University of Oviedo
142 PUBLICATIONS 631 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 205 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Non contact measurement View project
Knowledge Based Engineering for Portable Coordinate Measurement Arms View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Cuesta on 22 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]
On: 05 December 2012, At: 09:48
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Production

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Automatic determination of bending

sequences for sheet metal parts with
parallel bends
a a a a
J. C. Rico , J. M. González , S. Mateos , E. Cuesta & G.
a
Valiño
a
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, University of
Oviedo, Campus de Viesques, Gijón, E-33204, Asturias, Spain
Version of record first published: 14 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: J. C. Rico, J. M. González, S. Mateos, E. Cuesta & G. Valiño (2003):
Automatic determination of bending sequences for sheet metal parts with parallel bends,
International Journal of Production Research, 41:14, 3273-3299
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020754031000095158
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
int. j. prod. res., 2003, vol. 41, no. 14, 3273–3299
Automatic determination of bending sequences for sheet metal parts with

parallel bends
J. C. RICO{*, J. M. GONZÁLEZ{, S. MATEOS{, E. CUESTA{ and

G. VALIÑO{
A method for solving the problem of bend sequencing in sheet metal manufactur-
ing is presented. The algorithm developed divides the part into basic shapes
(channels and spirals) and determines the partial sequences associated with
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 09:48 05 December 2012
them. The complete bending sequences associated with the complete part were
obtained from the combination of these partial sequences. To make this combi-
nation possible, several strategies were defined to reduce the number of solutions
and, therefore, the searching time. All sequences (partial and complete) were
checked considering possible part–tool collisions and tolerance constraints. The
last stage was to order the sequences by taking into account the total process time.
To attain the required process time accuracy, a robot was used for the handling
operations. Finally, the sequence associated with the lower process time was
selected as the optimal solution.
1. Introduction
The most important task in a process planning system associated with sheet metal
manufacturing is determining the possible bending sequences. As in most planning
systems, several sequences can be obtained, all of them valid from a technical point
of view. The technical reasons to find valid sequences are usually focused on elim-
inating sequences that would lead to a collision between the part and the punch or
the machine. However, other criteria such as the part design tolerances or the time
and cost of the bending process must be taken into account because they also have
an influence on the bending sequence.
It is not easy to take into account all these influence factors, in particular when
considering that a high number of feasible sequences must be checked and analysed
in order to satisfy the constraints imposed by each of them. The number of theore-
tically possible bending sequences to be analysed is n!2n 00 (considering n bends and
two possible holding positions for each bend). This number of possible sequences is
very large. Therefore, analysis of all possible sequences does not appear to be prac-
tical within a reasonable calculation time. For this reason, with the aim of reducing
the number of sequences to be analysed, different strategies and heuristic rules must
be provided.
As far as search methods for bending sequences are concerned, there are only a
few contributions from different research groups. Moreover, most of these works
Revision received January 2003.

{ University of Oviedo, Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Campus de Viesques,
E-33204 Gijón, Asturias, Spain.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: jcarlosr@correo.uniovi.es
International Journal of Production Research ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0020754031000095158
3274 J. C. Rico et al.
have only analysed some of the aspects that have influence on the determination of
valid bending sequences.
Searching techniques mainly use a bending sequence graph based on heuristics
rules and process constraints. In some cases, researchers have focused on finding a
rapid and reasonably feasible solution while others have developed full planning
systems that consider economical aspects in order to find an optimal solution.
For example, de Vin et al. (1992, 2000) developed the PART-S system for the
planning of sheet metal parts, which integrates the cutting, punching, nesting and
welding processes in addition to the bending process. The PART-S system uses a
heuristic search method known as ‘order best-first search’. The method starts from
the bent part and uses a search tree including all the intermediate feasible sequences
to obtain the completely unbent part. During the search, the system considers several
constraints with regards to collisions and part tolerances (de Vin et al. 1994a).
Additionally, the system uses heuristic rules for minimizing part-handling time to
guide the search (de Vin et al. 1994b).
Shpitalni and Saddan (1994) and Radin et al. (1997) developed a method for the
bending sequence determination and tool selection formulated as a graph search
problem. Heuristic rules and the A* algorithm were used to accelerate the search
and reduce the number of nodes in the graph. The function used to improve the
solution was defined in terms of heuristics rules and costs (the latter caused by tool
change, manipulation and handling stability). This method did not consider toler-
ances in the bending sequence search. Shpitalni and Radin (1999) then proposed a
precedence graph for determining the precedence relations required to obtain the
most accurate critical tolerances for a given part. If this accuracy is attainable, then
all alternative bending sequences can be determined from these relations. The graph
is modified after each unbending operation until the complete unbending sequence is
obtained.
Wang and Bourne (1997) and Gupta et al. (1998) also developed a process
planning system to determine bending sequences of sheet metal parts based on the
identification of their features. The system uses a forward reasoning approach (from
unbent part to bent part). As the design progresses, the part features are automati-
cally generated. The system converts these features into heuristics and constraints to
make the search of bending sequences easier. The rules used, with different weights,
suggest a partial order of the final complete bending sequence. An A* search algo-
rithm is used to achieve near-minimum costs taking into account the following items:
tools and robot grippers needed, tool layout, grasp positions, gauge and robot
motion plans for making the part. However, the system does not take into consid-
eration the part tolerances.
Another more specific work but related to the bending process planning is the
contribution made by Alva and Gupta (2001) who pointed out the importance of
tools in the process planning and their relation to the features of the part to be
manufactured. In this sense, they created parametric geometric models of the
punch that could be adapted to the geometry and bending sequences of multiple
parts avoiding the possible collisions between them. This work is applicable only to
2.5D parts with bending angles of 908.
Duflou et al. (1999) describe a procedure for bending sequencing based on
precedence constraint solving. These constraints could derive from the analysis of
typical part details (hard constraints), and also from empirical rules (heuristic
constraints). The relative importance attached to these constraints is indicated by
Determination of bending sequences 3275
using a matrix notation with different priority levels. This method provides an
important reduction of search space by eliminating all sequences that do not
comply with the constraints. When heuristic rules can lead to preference conflicts,
a travelling salesperson (TSP)-based method is used. To solve the TSP, a branch-
and-bound search procedure, based on dynamic penalty calculations, is applied. This
procedure provides a near-optimum solution.
As shown, all these authors have considered different aspects that affect the
bending sequence: tolerances, possible collisions with the tool or machine, manip-
ulation times, etc. However, most authors focus on the analysis of influence factors
and few describe in detail the algorithms used for searching the valid bending
sequences. Similarly, only a few consider all of the influence factors simultaneously.
In this paper a method for bending sequencing is shown. The used algorithm
divides the sheet metal part into basic shapes and obtains the complete bending
sequences from the combination of partial bending sequences associated with
basic shapes. If a partial sequence is not valid, it will not be considered in the
assembly of a complete sequence. Likewise, the combination of partial sequences
is based on several strategies to reduce the number of solutions and, therefore, the
time to search the best solution. Although the developed system is restricted to sheet
metal part with all bends in one unique direction, the partial sequences as well as the
complete sequences are checked considering two aspects: the part-tool collisions and
the tolerance constraints. The automatic collisions analysis avoids the use of simula-
tion programs. Besides, it is possible to search valid sequences by taking into account
tool-part collisions and/or tolerances. Finally, the system analyses the process time
for each complete sequence determining the lower cost solution. In order to attain
the required process time accuracy a robot is used for the handling operations.
2. General methodology for obtaining the bending sequences

As described above, many sequencing methods are based on making the bending
process in reverse sense. Therefore, the unbending alternatives are studied from the
bent part until the flat part is obtained. With this method, it is necessary not only to
consider the part-tool collision but also the possible collision between different zones
of the part during the unbending process. In this paper, a forward bending sequence
method (from the flat part towards the folded part) has been developed to find the
valid bending sequences.
The main idea of the developed calculation method is to divide the part in basic
shapes (see Section 3). In this way, instead of a complex shaped part with a high
number of bends and many possible bending solutions, this system will provide
simpler shapes; each of them associated with only a few bends and consequently
with a limited number of bending solutions. Therefore, in the same way as the
complete shape of the part is the result of joining several basic shapes, the complete
bending sequence will be the result of assembling all partial sequences associated
with each basic shape.
This method has a major advantage. A complete bending sequence can be
rejected by eliminating some partial bending sequences included both in the complete
sequence and in a non-valid partial sequence corresponding to a basic shape of
the part. In addition, if the strategies defined for assembling the partial sequences
associated with the basic shapes are considered the search time of bending sequences
compatible with the system constraints will be substantially reduced.
The stages for searching the valid sequences and the optimal bending sequence
are as follows:
. Introduce the general data of the part in the database.
. Identify the basic shapes of the part.
. Build the tree graph associated with the part based on its basic shapes.
. Check the feasible partial sequences associated with the bends of the basic
shapes. This checking includes the collision analysis with the tool (punch
and die) and the influence of the tolerances that affect each basic shape.
. Assemble the partial bending sequences associated with basic shapes in order
to determine the sequences associated with the complete part.
. Check the complete sequences obtained. This checking includes the collision
analysis with the tool (punch and die) and the influence of the tolerances that
affect the complete part.
. Finally, the process time for each sequence must be taken into account in order
to give higher priority to some sequences.
In the following sections, each of these stages is described in detail.
3. Analysis of the part geometry to bend

In order to reduce the calculation time and make the search process of the valid
bending sequences easier, the bent part is divided into basic shapes. Some authors
use basic shapes known as channels. As it is shown in this paper, other basic shapes
known as spirals can also be considered (figure 1).
3.1. Basic channels and spirals

A basic channel consists of two main consecutive bends (A and B) that are made
on the same face of the sheet metal and two other extreme bends (X and Y) that can
or cannot coincide with the initial or final part edges. Hence, there are three types of
channels (figure 1a–c).
On the other hand, a basic spiral consists of three main consecutive bends (A, B
and C) that are made on the same face of the sheet metal and two other extreme
bends (X and Y) that can or cannot coincide with the initial or final part edges.
Hence, there are three types of spirals (figure 1d–f ).
3.2. Compound channels and spirals

The compound channels consist of one or more basic channels. In the example
shown in figure 1g a basic channel B, C, D, Y is included in a compound channel X,
A, D, Y. Any compound channel can be in turn included in another compound
channel.
Similarly, the compound spirals consist of one or more channels. As can be seen
from figure 1h, the basic channel X, A, B, C is included in a compound spiral X, A,
D, E, Y. Any compound channel can be included in another compound spiral, but a
compound spiral can never be included in another compound spiral.
3.3. Recognition of basic and compound shapes in a bending part

The procedure used to recognize the basic and compound shapes in a part starts
with the search of all existing nodes from the initial edge to the final edge, checking
the number of consecutive bends which have been made on the same sheet metal
face.
Y X
A B
Y
Channel Y
X
A B
A B
A B
(a) Type_1 (b) Type_2 (c) Type_3
Basic
shape X
Y C
X
Y C
X
Y C
A B
Spiral
X
A B C
Y
A B
A B
(d) Type_1 (e) Type_2 (f) Type_3
Y
B
A
Channel
C D
(g)
Compound
shape A X
C
B
Spiral
D E
(h)
Figure 1. Basic and compound geometrical shapes: channels and spirals.
The system checks which one of the nodes are edges or bends. If it is a bend, it
then checks the value of the orientation parameter (associated with the part) in the
database in order to know the bending face (bent-up or bent-down). In this way, two
consecutive bends with the same Orientation will determine a channel and three
consecutive bends with identical Orientation will determine a spiral.
To explain the method developed in the automatic recognition of basic or com-
pound shapes (channels or spirals) and the connection between them, the part shown
in figure 2a will be used. Starting the part analysis from node 1, the first basic shape
found is channel 6, 7, 8, 9 because it is the first sequence with two consecutive bends
made by the same face (identical Orientation). Next, it is necessary to check whether
this channel is or is not included in a compound shape (channel or spiral). For this
12
1 2
Part
11
Level_0 Part
3 4
9 10
5
6
7 8
12
Compound spiral
2
11
Compound spiral Level_1 (2,3,10,11)
3 (2,3,10,11)
9
10
Compound channel
2
Compound channel
4 (2,3,8,9) Level_2 (2,3,8,9)
9
Compound channel
(4,5,8,9)
Compound channel
8
4
Level_3 (4,5,8,9)
9
5 6
Basic channel
8 (6,7,8,9)
Basic channel
9
Level_4 (6,7,8,9)
6
8
7
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Recognition of basic and compound shapes and the associated representation tree.
purpose, from edges 6 and 9 two lines are drawn parallel to the line which joins the
main nodes of the channel (7 and 8). The system checks which line intersects channel
segments 6–7 or 8–9 and it eliminates the extreme node (6) of the channel corre-
sponding with this line along with the consecutive main node (7). It is important to
note that only two consecutive nodes are eliminated when the node used as origin of
the parallel line does not coincide with initial or final edges of the part. In this case,
line origin (bend 6) is not the initial or final edge of the part. Therefore, bends 6 and
7 are eliminated. In this way, the compound channel 4, 5, 8, 9 that is in turn related
to the basic channel 6, 7, 8, 9 through the node 8 (compound node) is found. Once
bends 6 and 7 are eliminated, the resulting shape is also a channel because two new
consecutive bends (5 and 8) with identical Orientation and opposite Orientation to
bends 4 and 9 are found.
To continue with the search procedure of a new compound shape (channel or
spiral) that includes compound channel 4, 5, 8, 9, from the extreme nodes 4 and 9,
two new lines are drawn parallel to the line that joins main node 5 with the con-
secutive node 6. The system checks which line intersects channel segments 4–5 or 8–9
and it eliminates the extreme node of the channel corresponding with this line along
with the consecutive main node. In this case, the line that intersects one of the
channel segments has the origin in node 4 and does not coincide with the initial
or final edge of the part. Therefore, the bend 4 and the consecutive node 5 are
eliminated. In this way, a compound channel 2, 3, 8, 9 is determined and related
to the compound channel 4, 5, 8, 9 through the node 8 (compound node).
Finally, the system searches a new compound channel or spiral that includes the
last compound channel 2, 3, 8, 9. Two new lines parallel to the line that joins main
node 3 with the consecutive node 4 are drawn from the extreme nodes 2 and 9. The
system checks which line intersects channel segments 2–3 or 8–9 and it eliminates the
extreme node of the channel corresponding with this line along with the consecutive
main node. In this case, the line that intersects one of the channel segments has the
origin in node 9 and it does not coincide with the initial or final edges of the part.
Therefore, bend 9 and previous node 8 are eliminated. In this way, the new com-
pound channel should be 2, 3, 10, 11, but the bends 3, 10 and 11 have identical
Orientation, therefore, this new shape will be a compound spiral. This spiral will be
defined by nodes 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 and it is related to the compound channel 2, 3, 8, 9
through the node 3 (compound node).
With the compound spiral 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 the search process has concluded
because the extreme nodes 2 and 12 coincide with the first and final edges of the part.
3.4. Representation tree of basic and compound shapes

After part division into basic and compound shapes the system creates a repre-
sentation tree that shows the hierarchical relations between these shapes. The initial
node of this tree represents the complete part and the other nodes represent each of
the basic and compound shapes. When a bend does not belong to any basic or
compound shape, it is named nodal basic shape and can also be included into the
representation tree associated with the part.
To build the representation tree it is only necessary to know that a basic shape is
related to a compound shape if they share one main bend. In this way, the tree will
have as many levels as numbers of hierarchical relations between basic and com-
pound shapes. Figure 2b shows the representation tree associated with the bent part
in figure 2a. In this case, there are five levels.
Based on this representation tree and the partial sequences associated with each
basic or compound shape, all possible sequences associated with the complete part
can be obtained.
4. Collision analysis
In the analysis of every basic or compound shape as well as in the process of
determining whether a complete sequence is valid or not, the possible collision
between part and tool (punch and die) during the bending process must be checked.
For this purpose, the tool geometry as well as the part location must be known for
each operation. In the following sections only punch geometry and part-punch
collisions are detailed.
4.1. Punch geometry

In this work, asymmetrical punch shapes have been selected (figure 3a). These
punch shapes, which have a large relief shape, help for bending complex parts. The
punch can be changed by only modifying the geometrical parameters of the model
(figure 3b) in order to provide different sizes and types of punches (standard, goose-
neck, sash).
Apart from the geometry of the punch, the ram of the bending machine is also
considered because it has an influence on the possible part collisions. As the ram
shape and the punch clamping system are different for each machine, the simplifica-
tion shown in figure 3a will be used for collision analysis.
Left Right Y
Side Side
70
Ram
10
10
X
40°
18
50
Punch 32
45
120
120
2 35
Die
25
50
°
40
55
X
18
R2
2
90°
8
8
70
(a) (b)
Y Y
P(Xp,Yp)
Ypunch
Ypunch
P(Xp,Yp)
Xp X Xp X
Xpunch
Xpunch
(c) (d)
Y
+
-
-
+
X7
X6
X5
X6
+
+
Y
Zone_1
P0
+
- -
Y7 = Y6 Y6
-
+
P3 +
Y5 Y5 Y6
+
Y4 P2
+
P1 Zone_2
-
Y4
+
- Y3
Y3
-
Y2
+
Y2
-
+
Y1
Y1 +
X + +
+ X6 X
X5
+
-
X4 = X5
+
X3 = X4
X2 = X3
-
X1 = X1
+
X2
+
-
(e) (f)
Figure 3. Geometrical parameters of the tool model used and the possible part–tool
collisions.
4.2. General method for collision analysis

For every part node (bent or not yet bent) after a bending operation, the possible
part-tool collision is detected by checking the node position with regard to the
boundary that defines the punch geometry. In all cases, verification must be made
when the part is gripped from one or the opposite extreme. For the node P (XP , YP )
shown in figure 3c, there is no collision if
Xpunch < XP : ð1Þ
In some cases, this calculation is not sufficient. For example, there is a collision when
the node P (XP ; YP ) shown in figure 3d is outside the boundary that defines the punch
geometry. To check this type of collisions the outside punch is divided in several
regions. In order to adapt the regions to different types of punches, they must have
parametric limits. Therefore, it is necessary to study different particular cases

depending on the location of each node and the adjacent nodes with regard to
these regions (figure 3e). When the node location and corresponding regions are
known, the line equation between the node to check and the previous one is deter-
mined. The system verifies whether this line intersects or not the boundary that
defines the punch geometry. An example of such a case is shown in figure 3f
where a node P can be located in three possible positions inside Zone 2þ ðP1 ; P2
or P3 ) and the previous node P0 is located inside Zone_1þ . In such cases it is
necessary to check a possible collision on Y ¼ Y6þ . For this purpose, the X coordi-
nate is calculated for the point (X; Y6þ ) located on the line P0 P (P can be P1, P2 or
P3) and it is compared with the X6þ value:
XðY6þ Þ X6þ ) collision ðP P2 or P P3 Þ ð2Þ
XðY6þ Þ > X6þ ) free of collision ðP P1 Þ: ð3Þ
4.3. Collision analysis for channels

To analyse the punch collision in a channel, the system first determines the
possible bending sequences free of collisions between the main bends A and B. It
is then necessary to check if:
. A must be bent before B (A*B).

. B must be bent before A (B*A).
. A can be bent before B or B can be bent before A (A*B or B*A).
Depending on the channel geometry some of these precedence cases can be unac-
ceptable due to possible collisions. Moreover, it is necessary to take into account that
the part can be gripped from one or the opposite extreme. The checked sequence is
valid if there is at least one part orientation free of collisions (figure 4a–d).
Only the bending sequences between the main bends A and B have been
considered so far. However, it is also necessary to consider the different types of
channels and the extreme bends X and Y (figure 1). In this sense, it was decided to
bend X and Y before A and B (figure 4e, f ) in order to avoid possible collisions.
4.4. Collision analysis for spirals

The first step in collision analysis between the punch and spiral is to determine
the sequences free of collisions between the main bends A, B and C.
Constraints to avoid
Collision zone Possible collision
the collision
Y Y
Y
X
A * B
B B
X
A X
B
A A
(a) (b)
X X
X
Y
B * A
A A
A B Y Y
B B
(c) (d)
B
X
Y Y * (A, B)
A B
(e) Sequence BAY
A
Y
X * (A, B)
Y
A B
B
(f) Sequence ABX
Figure 4. Constraints to avoid part–tool collisions in channels.
As in the case of the channels, depending on the spiral geometry, some of the
sequences between A, B and C can be unacceptable due to collisions with the punch.
Some constraints have been imposed to avoid these collisions (figure 5). At the same
time, these constraints will help reduce the solutions to be checked.
On the other hand, as spirals have three main bends, it may happen that one of
them is not bent when the sequence between the other two bends is checked.
Therefore, there is a risk of new possible collisions and some constraints must be
imposed to avoid them (figure 6).
the collision
X X
X
Y
A
C
A B * A
A
B
B B
(a) (b)
Y
Y
X
Y
A
C B * C
C
C
B
B B
(c) (d)
A A
A
X X
X B B
B
C * (A, B)
Y
C
C C
(e) (f)
C C
C
Y
Y
B B
Y
B
A * (B, C)
A
A A
(g) (h)
Figure 5. Constraints to avoid part–tool collisions in spirals when all bends are made.
Only the bending sequences between the main bends A, B and C have been
considered so far. However, it is also necessary to take into account the different
types of spirals and the extreme bends X and Y (figure 1). In this sense, for spirals
Type_2 it is advisable that bend Y be done before B to avoid possible collisions
(figure 6i). Similarly, for spirals Type_3 it is also advisable to bend X and Y before B
(figure 6j).
Table 1 shows the partial sequences (free of collisions) associated with each of the
basic and compound shapes of the part in figure 7.
5. Searching the first valid bending complete sequence

Partial sequences (free of collisions) obtained for each basic shape are assembled
in order to calculate the complete sequences, all bends inclusive.
the collision
X X
X
A A
A
B
B
B C * B
C C C
(a) (b)
X X
X
A A
A
C * A
B B B
Y
C
C C
(c) (d)
Y Y
Y
C
C C
B B
B
A * B
A A
A
(e) (f)
Y Y
C C
C
A * C
B B
B
X
A A A
(g) (h)
X
Y
X
A C Y
A C Y * B
(i)
X X Y
Y
A C
A C (X, Y) * B
B
B
(j)
Figure 6. Constraints to avoid part–tool collisions in spirals when some bends are not made.
Complete
Possible sequences
Partial sequences Sequences by level complete sequences free of collision
Basic spiral Level 1 No. Total part Total part
5-2-4-3 Spiral + compound 5-2-4-3-5-4-8 1 5-2-4-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 5-2-4-3-7-6-8

2-4-5-3 channel 5-2-4-3-4-5-8 2 5-2-4-3-4-(5-7-4-6)-8 2-4-5-3-7-6-8
2-5-4-3 2-4-5-3-5-4-8 3 2-4-5-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 2-5-4-3-7-6-8
5-4-2-3 2-4-5-3-4-5-8 4 2-4-5-3-4-(5-7-4-6)-8 5-4-2-3-7-6-8
4-5-2-3 2-5-4-3-5-4-8 5 2-5-4-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 4-5-2-3-7-6-8
2-5-4-3-4-5-8 6 2-5-4-3-4-(5-7-4-6)-8 5-7-4-6-8-2-3
5-4-2-3-5-4-8 7 5-4-2-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 4-5-7-6-8-2-3
Compound 5-4-2-3-4-5-8 8 5-4-2-3-4-(5-7-4-6)-8 7-6-5-4-8-2-3
channel 4-5-2-3-5-4-8 9 4-5-2-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 6-4-7-5-8-2-3

5-4-8 4-5-2-3-4-5-8 10 4-5-2-3-4-(5-7-4-6)-8 4-6-7-5-8-2-3
4-5-8 Compound channel þ 5-4-8-5-2-4-3 11 5-2-4-3-(6-4-7-5)-4-8 5-4-7-6-8-2-3
spiral 5-4-8-2-4-5-3 12 5-2-4-3-4-(6-4-7-5)-8 7-5-4-6-8-2-3
5-4-8-2-5-4-3 13 2-4-5-3-(6-4-7-5)-4-8 7-6-4-5-8-2-3
5-4-8-5-4-2-3 14 2-4-5-3-4-(6-4-7-5)-8
5-4-8-4-5-2-3 15 2-5-4-3-(6-4-7-5)-4-8
4-5-8-5-2-4-3 16 2-5-4-3-4-(6-4-7-5)-8
4-5-8-2-4-5-3 17 5-4-2-3-(6-4-7-5)-4-8
4-5-8-2-5-4-3 18 5-4-2-3-4-(6-4-7-5)-8
4-5-8-5-4-2-3 19 4-5-2-3-(6-4-7-5)-4-8
4-5-8-4-5-2-3 20 4-5-2-3-4-(6-4-7-5)-8
Basic channel Level 2 ... ...
5-6-4-6 5-7-4-6
6-4-7-5 6-4-7-5 ... ...
5-4-7-6 5-4-7-6 231 5-2-4-3-(4-6-7-5)-4-8
6-7-4-5 6-7-4-5 232 5-2-4-3-4-(4-6-7-5)-8
5-4-6-7 5-4-6-7 233 2-4-5-3-(4-6-7-5)-4-8
6-7-5-4 6-7-5-4 234 2-4-5-3-4-(4-6-7-5)-8
7-6-5-4 7-6-5-4 235 2-5-4-3-(4-6-7-5)-4-8
4-5-6-7 4-5-6-7 236 2-5-4-3-4-(4-6-7-5)-8
7-5-4-6 7-5-4-6 237 5-4-2-3-(4-6-7-5)-4-8
7-6-4-5 7-6-4-5 238 5-4-2-3-4-(4-6-7-5)-8
4-5-7-6 4-5-7-6 239 4-5-2-3-(4-6-7-5)-4-8
4-6-7-5 4-6-7-5 240 4-5-2-3-4-(4-6-7-5)-8
Table 1. Partial and complete bending sequences associated to the part in figure 7.
5.1. Partial sequences assembly

The assembly procedure permits the combination of partial sequences associated
with each basic and compound shape of the part. These basic and compound shapes
are at different levels inside the part representation tree.
5.1.1. Assembly of partial sequences at level_1

To find rapidly a first bending sequence, a particular assembly order has been
defined between the basic and compound shapes at the same level of the tree. For
this purpose, it is necessary to take into consideration the Depth of each shape at the
same level.
The Depth of a basic or compound shape is calculated by taking into account the
position of the bends with regard to the central bend of the part. The outside bends
2 1
Part 6 Level_0
5
8
7
3 4
9
Basic spiral Compound channel
(1,2,3,4,5) (4,5,8,9)
2 1 6
5
8
5 7
Level_1
4
3 4 9
Basic channel
(4,5,6,7)
5 6
Level_2
7
Figure 7. Part example consisting of a basic spiral and two channels: a compound channel
and a basic channel.
with larger Depths will be bent first to avoid part collisions with tools; otherwise, the
part may roll up making the tool access difficult.
To apply the Depth rule, an index representing the Depth value must be assigned
to each bend. For this purpose, the following rules have been taken into account:
. For an odd number of bends, a Depth value of 0 will be assigned to the centre
bend.
. For an even number of bends, a Depth value of 0 will be assigned to the two
centre bends.
. Between bends with a Depth value of 0 and the initial edge of the part, Depth
values of 1, 2, 3, etc. will be assigned.
. Between bends with a Depth value of 0 and the final edge of the part, Depth
values of 1.001, 2.002, 3.003, etc. will be assigned.
The Depth increment to three places of decimals for bends between the centre and the
final edge allows the system to avoid an identical Depth value for parts where there is
the same number of bends between the initial or final bend and the centre bend.
As an example, for the part shown in figure 7 there are a basic spiral (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
and a compound channel (4, 5, 8, 9) at level_1. The part has seven bends (2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8), where 5 is the central bend. The Depth value of 0 is assigned to the central bend
(5) and, therefore, Depth values of 1, 2 and 3 will be assigned to bends 4, 3 and 2,
respectively. Similarly, Depth values of 1.001, 2.002 and 3.003 will be assigned to
bends 6, 7 and 8, respectively. Hence, mean Depth for the spiral shape (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is:
ð3 þ 2 þ 1 þ 0Þ=4 ¼ 1:5 ð4Þ
and mean Depth for the compound channel (4, 5, 8, 9) is:

ð1 þ 0 þ 3:003Þ=3 ¼ 1:334: ð5Þ
In this case, mean Depth for the spiral is larger than mean Depth for the channel so
the first bends to be made will be the spiral bends. This means that bending
sequences at level_1 in the part representation tree will consist of bending sequences
associated with the spiral followed by bending sequences associated with the com-
pound channel (table 1).
5.1.2. Assembly of partial sequences among different levels

After the assembly process of sequences at level_1, it will only be necessary to
assemble the rest of sequences associated with basic shapes at lower levels until the
part bending sequence is complete. This assembly operation must observe that
shapes at different levels are joined through a common node previously used to
build the part representation tree. This common node will be used like a joining
point between sequences at different levels. For the part in figure 7 there is only a
channel shape at level_2, whose bending sequences will be joined through the
common node 5 with the sequences at level_1. Using this common node, the
sequences obtained are shown in table 1. In sum, 120 complete sequences are
obtained by combining the number of shapes at level_1 together with the number
of sequences associated with each shape at each level.
5
2
12 ¼ 120: ð6Þ
The precedence order between the bends corresponding to a basic channel at level_2
must be taken into account in order to find potentially valid solutions quickly. For
this purpose, the system first checks if some extreme bends in sequences of the
channel at level_2 (bends 4 and 7 in this example) coincide with some bends made
before the common node (5) and contained in higher level sequences. In this exam-
ple, bend 4 satisfies this condition. Next, it must be checked whether the bend will be
done by the lower or the upper faces (in this case, the upper face). Then, sequences at
low level are ordered to give priority to those whose bends are bent from the oppo-
site face (in this example, bends 5 and 6). In consequence, the system tries to alter-
nate bends made in opposite faces so that the first complete sequences analysed have
fewer possibilities of collisions and, therefore, will not be rejected after a long time
spent on its analysis.
5.2. Checking of collisions for a complete sequence

At this stage, the possible collisions of the first complete sequence are checked. As
shown, there are some duplicate nodes in the sequences obtained. This poses the
possibility to make a bend in a different order within the same sequence. A complete
sequence will be rejected when any of the following conditions is satisfied:
. A node, which it is not duplicated in the sequence, leads to a collision during
the bending process when the part is gripped by the initial and final edges.
. A node, which is duplicated in the sequence, leads to a collision in all the
positions during the bending process when the part is gripped by the initial
and final edges.
Therefore, the first complete sequence obtained for the part in figure 7:
5 2 4 3 5 ð5 7 4 6Þ 4 8 ð7Þ
is checked to prove if there is a collision for the first bend (5). In this case, there is no
collision when the part is gripped by the initial or final edges. Therefore, position of
bend 5 is valid and its duplicated bends in the sequence are eliminated. The sequence
will be the following:
5 2 4 3 ð7 4 6Þ 4 8: ð8Þ
Similarly, the bends 2 and 4 are checked. In both cases, there is no collision when the
part is gripped by the initial or final edges. Therefore, the sequence will be:
5 2 4 3 ð7 6Þ 8: ð9Þ
The next checking is done for the bend 3. In this case, there is a collision when the
part is gripped by the final edge but not when it is gripped by the opposite edge
(figure 8). Therefore, the above sequence is valid:

5 2 4 3 7 6 8: ð10Þ
A similar checking process applies to the rest of bends. The analysed sequence is
finally passed. The computing time required to find this first valid sequence has been
11.52 s. It is important to note that the information concerning the final or the
opposite edges must be saved because it will be used in the bending time analysis.
5.3. Strategy to continue the search

If the first complete sequence previously checked is not valid, the system will
continue analysing a new sequence. This new sequence could be selected by the order
shown in table 1, which would involve a larger computing time. The following rules
help the system find a new valid complete sequence quickly:
. Bend, which leads to a part–tool collision is included only once in the complete
sequence. In this case, the partial sequence that includes this bend will not be
used to assemble a complete sequence. The next complete sequence is made by
using the next partial sequence (table 1).
. Bend, which leads to a part–tool collision is included several times in the
complete sequence. In this case, the system searches the basic or compound
shape that includes this bend on the lower level of the part representation tree.
The next complete sequence is made by using the next partial sequence on the
lower level (table 1).
. In the previous case, if there is only one valid partial sequence associated with
the basic shape or the possible partial sequences have already been checked, a
9 9
7 8 8 7
Gripper 6 6
position
5 Gripper 5
1 1
position
2 2
4 4
3 3
Figure 8. Influence on the gripping side in part–tool collision.

new partial sequence associated with the compound shape including the pre-
vious basic shape will be selected. Therefore, this compound shape is on a
higher level of the part representation tree.
. When there are no more partial sequences on level_1, the basic shapes order at
this level will be modified taking into account bends Depth criteria.
The application of these rules allows the system to eliminate quickly possible com-
plete sequences that produce collisions.
6. Searching other valid bending complete sequences

After a first complete sequence is identified, the system checks all possible
combinations of partial sequences associated with each basic shape in the part
representation tree (figure 7). Consequently, 240 complete sequences are obtained
by combining the number of shapes at level_1 together with the number of partial
sequences associated with each shape at each level:
2!
ð5
2
12Þ ¼ 240: ð11Þ
All these complete sequences must be analysed in order to check possible collisions.
This checking method has been described in Section 5.2. When there is a collision,
the complete sequence analysed is rejected and a new complete sequence is checked.
In this case, the rules defined to continue the search of a valid complete sequence (see
Section 5.3) are not applied. Of 240 analysed sequences, 13 complete sequences
free of collisions are shown in table 1.
7. Tolerances analysis
During the cutting process, the sheet metal blank is affected by a length error
C. During the bending process, there exists another length error, which can be
further divided into the following:
. Error from inaccurate positioning of the part against the finger stops (P).
. Error from the actual bending deformation of the sheet metal (L).
These errors and the length error C are propagated in the way shown in figure 9,
where ¼ P þ L. As shown, the error is propagated during the bending
process from the punch toward the finger stop, the sheet metal edge or an already
formed bend (Shpitalni and Radin 1999). Therefore, when the bending sequence is
finished, there will be several accumulated errors that may comply with the design
tolerance specifications.
Although it is not easy to avoid errors P and L during the bending process,
the bending sequence selected must guarantee that length errors (P þ L)
associated with the locations affected by tolerances should be the smallest possible.
For this purpose, different rules must be applied in order to select the best bending
sequence.
The problem becomes increasingly difficult as the number of tolerances that
affect the part is bigger or overlap each other. Usually, the following types of toler-
ances are considered (figure 10):
. Simple tolerance, when nodes (N-P, R-S) of the affected dimension are adja-
cent.
. Compound tolerance, when nodes (P-S, P-U, etc.) of the affected dimension
are not adjacent.
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
Figure 9. Propagation of positioning and deformation errors during the bending process.
In order to accomplish a simple tolerance, it is necessary to take care of the position-

ing errors during the bending process, regardless of the bending sequence between
the bends affected by the tolerance. However, in order to accomplish a compound
tolerance it is necessary to consider the bending sequence between the bends affected
by the tolerance. Figure 10 shows constraints that must be imposed to obtain the
bending sequences according to each compound tolerance (Type_1, Type_2,
Type_3).
Some of the tolerances can affect bends in basic or compound shapes (channels or
spirals) of the part. For this reason, a first analysis of the sequences associated with
basic and compound shapes is made. Thus, non-compatible sequences with the part
design tolerances are eliminated. Since some tolerances can affect bends that belong
to different basic or compound shapes, it will be necessary to check the complete
bending at the end of the analysis. In any case, the number of sequences to be
checked will have been substantially reduced.
7.1. Analysis of compound tolerances that affect partial sequences

This tolerance analysis is made for basic and compound shapes of the part.
Therefore, it is only possible if the two extreme bends of the compound tolerance
are included in the same basic shape or compound shape.
Constraints considered for the different types of compound tolerances and shapes
are shown in figure 11. In this way, some of the partial sequences associated with
each basic or compound shape are eliminated and, therefore, the number of final
possible complete sequences to be checked is reduced. Table 2 shows the application
of these constraints associated with the part in figure 7 and the valid sequences
obtained.
Type of Tolerance Constraints
Tolerance
N Tol R-S
Simple
Tol N-P
R S
-
P Q
Type_1 (Q, R , S) * P
R S
or
P Q
Tol P-S (P, Q, R) * S

Compound Tolerance
T U
(Q, R, S) * P or (P, Q , R) * S
Type_2
R S
and
P Q
Tol P-S
(P, Q, R, S, T) * U
Tol P-U
V (Q, R, S) * P or (P, Q, R) * S
and
Tol S-V
U
T
Type_3
R S (T, U, V) * S or (S, T, U) * V
P Q and
Tol P-S
S cannot be bent in last place
Figure 10. Types of tolerances considered and constraints imposed to accomplish

tolerances.
Compound Shape affected by compound

Constraints
Tolerance tolerances
P
Basic shape
(Q, R) * S
S
or
R
(R, S) * Q
Q
Tol Q-S
P U
S T
Q * T
Type_1
Compound shape
Q R
Tol Q-T
Q P
(T, U) * V
or
R S
V
(U, V) * T
T U
Tol T-V
P
W
U V
Type_2 S V * Q
T
Q
R Tol R-V
Tol Q-V
P
U
Q
T (R, S) * Q
W
Type_3 R S V and
Tol S-V
X (S,T, U) * V
Tol Q-S
Figure 11. Constraints considered for different types of tolerances and basic shapes.
3292
Basic and Possible Constraints Final Valid Total

compound partial by partial Possible complete complete process
Part shapes sequences tolerance sequences No. sequences sequences time
5-2-4-3 – 5-2-4-3 1 5-2-4-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 5-2-4-3-7-6-8 197.32

2-4-5-3 2-4-5-3 2 5-2-4-3-4-(5-7-4-6)-8 2-4-5-3-7-6-8 192.85
2-5-4-3 2-5-4-3 3 5-2-4-3-(7-6-5-4)-4-8 2-5-4-3-7-6-8 192.95
5-4-2-3 5-4-2-3 4 5-2-4-3-4-(7-6-5-4)-8 5-4-2-3-7-6-8 196.85
4-5-2-3 4-5-2-3 ... ... 4-5-2-3-7-6-8 200.92
5-7-4-6-8-2-3 193.22
4-5-7-6-8-2-3 196.88
5-4-8 5*8 5-4-8 7-6-5-4-8-2-3 196.98
J. C. Rico et al.
4-5-8 4-5-8 5-4-7-6-8-2-3 192.97
7-5-4-6-8-2-3 197.07
... ...
5-7-4-6 5-7-4-6 60 5-4-2-3-4-(5-4-6-7)-8
7-6-5-4 7-6-5-4 61 5-4-2-3-(6-7-5-4)-4-8
6-4-7-5 - ... ...
4-5-6-7 4-5-6-7
5-4-7-6 5-4-7-6
7-5-4-6 (4, 5) * 6 7-5-4-6
6-7-4-5 –
4-6-7-5 or –
5-4-6-7 5-4-6-7
7-6-4-5 (5, 6) * 4 – ... ...
6-7-5-4 6-7-5-4 159 (4-5-7-6)-4-8-4-5-2-3
4-5-7-6 4-5-7-6 160 4-(4-5-7-6)-8-4-5-2-3
Table 2. Partial and complete bending sequences obtained for the part example in figure 7.
7.2. Analysis of compound tolerances that affect complete sequences

When a compound tolerance relates two bends that belong to different basic or
compound shapes, it is necessary to analyse the order constraints imposed by this
tolerance in the complete sequence. In order to avoid contradictory constraints, this
analysis has the following limitations (figure 12):
. Any tolerances likely to be simultaneously interpreted like a tolerance Type_2

or Type_3 are not considered (Tol_A in figure 12a).
. Common bend in a Type_3 tolerance cannot be affected by more than two
tolerances (bend 5 in figure 12b).
. Bends affected by a tolerance Type_3 (different from the common bend)
cannot be extreme bends in other tolerances (bend 6 in Tol_B, figure 12c).
With the example shown in figure 7 and the possible sequences obtained in the
compound tolerance analysis, the system will make the assembly of the possible
partial sequences using the process shown in table 1. In this way, 160 potential
solutions will be obtained (table 2):
2!ð5
2
8Þ ¼ 160: ð12Þ
Although these 160 sequences have been obtained from the partial sequences that
satisfy the tolerance constraints, some of them may not satisfy the constraints
imposed by the part design tolerances. The valid complete sequences are finally
obtained (table 2) by means of eliminating the duplicate bends (see Section 5.2)
and applying the criteria and constraints shown in figure 11. In this way, the
number of possible solutions is reduced to 10.
Tol C
9
1 8
10
6 7
4 5
2 3
Tol A Tol B
(a)
1
Tol C
6 7
4 5
2 3
Tol A Tol B
(b)
Tol C
9
1 8
10
6 7
Tol B
4 5
3
2
Tol A
(c)
Figure 12. Types of tolerances not considered in tolerances analysis.

8. Total time analysis for bending

Once a set of valid bending sequences is identified, the last step will be to order
them by taking into account the total process time. In this way, the sequence asso-
ciated with the lower process time will be selected as the best solution. In order to
attain the required process time accuracy a robot is used for the handling operations.
For the calculation of the total time the following expression will be used:
Tt ¼ nðtLU þ b
tb þ tm Þ þ q
tSU ; ð13Þ
where n is the batch size, tLU is the time used to load and unload the part from the
machine, b is the number of bends in each complete bending sequence, tb is the rise,
hold down and fall time used by the punch to make each bend, tm is the total
manipulation time in each complete bending sequence, q is the number of tooling
stages required (punch-die pairs) and tSU is the set-up time.

The user will estimate values of tLU , tb and tSU taking into account the machine,
punch and die holders and the system used to load/unload the part.
The total manipulation time tm is calculated by (figure 13):
X
i¼b1
tm ¼ a
tA þ m
tB þ ðttr Þi!iþ1 ; ð14Þ
i¼1
where a is the number of rotations A in the complete bending sequence, tA is the time
used for each rotation A, m is the number of rotations B in the complete bending
sequence, tB is the gripper repositioning time and ðttr Þi!iþ1 is the translation time to
move the part between the ith and (i þ 1)th bends. The user will estimate values of tA
and tB taking into account the robot used to manipulate the part during the bending
process.
The translation time ðttr Þi!iþ1 is calculated taking into consideration the distance
di!iþ1 between the ith and (i þ 1)th bends, and the velocity of translation V (figure
14):
X
i¼b1
d1!2 þ d2!3 þ . . . þ db1!b
ðttr Þi!iþ1 ¼ : ð15Þ
i¼1
V
Figure 13. Types of rotations (A, B) and translation (C) during bending process.
1 8
2 7
6
9
3 1 5
2
® 2
d1
5
8
d4 ®
7 4
6
5 3
Figure 14. Determination of distance of translation between two consecutive bends.
The calculation of number m of rotations B is done in order to provide handling

stability. The handling stability occurs when the centre of gravity of the part is
located between the machine and the gripper. If there is no collision, this condition
will be the preferred one to select the part extreme to be gripped. For applying this
condition, it is necessary to select a reference bend. This will be the nearest bend to
the centre of gravity (figure 15). However, the position of the centre of gravity
changes when a new bend is made and therefore the reference bend can also
change. In order to simplify the calculation this aspect has not been considered.
Therefore, both the reference bend position and the centre of gravity will be deter-
mined when the part is unfolded.
2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5 6
8
7 c.g.
3 4 L1 L2
9
Reference bending line L/2
(L1 ³L2)
Bending sequence 5 2 4 3 7 6 8
Orientation down up up up up down down
a 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
From edge 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Gripping position
based on collision
From edge 9 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
From edge 1 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Gripping position
based on c.g.
From edge 9 No Yes Yes Yes No No No
Final gripping
From edge 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No
position
From edge 9 No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
m 0 1 1 2 2 3 3
Figure 15. Determination of parameters a and m for a complete bending sequence.

The way to calculate the m value for a particular bending sequence can be seen
from figure 15. In terms of part-tool collision, several bends (5, 2, 4, 7) can be bent
gripping the part from any of its extremes. However, other bends (3, 6, 8) can be bent
gripping the part from only one extreme. The valid gripping extremes that take into
account the position of the reference bend 4 are shown in figure 15. According to this
condition, bends 3, 6 and 8 would be bent gripping the part from an extreme that
may cause a collision. For this reason, the gripping extreme eventually selected for
bending bends 3, 6 and 8 will be imposed by collision constraints.
Moreover, when a reference bend (4) can be bent gripping the part from the two
extremes, the gripping extreme selected will be the same as the one selected for the
previous bent. It will reduce the number of rotations B and the handling time. When
the reference bend comes first in the sequence, it will be bent by gripping the part
from the same extreme as the second bend in the sequence. Figure 15 shows a
sequence with 3 gripping changes of the part and, therefore, the value of m will be 3.
8.1. Calculation of total bending time

As an example, the total bending time has been calculated for the first complete
sequence corresponding to the part in figure 7:
5 2 4 3 7 6 8: ð16Þ
The total bending time will be calculated using expressions (13–15). Figure 15 shows
the values of a ¼ 2 and m ¼ 3. Therefore, considering n ¼ 1, tLU ¼ 15 s, b ¼ 7,
tb ¼ 4 s, q ¼ 1, tSU ¼ 120 s, tA ¼ 4 s, tB ¼ 8 s and V ¼ 300 mm/s, the following
values are obtained:
X
i¼b1
230 þ 170 þ 70 þ 166:27 þ 25 þ 35:35
ðttr Þi!iþ1 ¼ ¼ 2:32 s ð17Þ
i¼1
300
tm ¼ 2
4 þ 3
8 þ 2:32 ¼ 34:32 s ð18Þ
Tt ¼ 1
ð15 þ 7
4 þ 34:32Þ þ 1
120 ¼ 197:32 s: ð19Þ
Table 2 shows the total bending time for all valid complete sequences. The minimum
time is 192.85 s and it is associated with the sequence:
2453768 ð20Þ
that will be the best sequence.
9. Conclusions
The system developed describes a method to obtain valid bending sequences
automatically according to the possible tool–part collisions and tolerances. An
approach to the bending time calculation was followed to order the valid sequences
and determine the best solution.
In order to reduce the calculation time to identify valid sequences, a method
based on the part division in basic shapes (channels and spirals) was proposed.
These basic shapes consist of a reduced number of bends and, therefore, it is
easier and faster to analyse them than the complete part. Next, the complete
sequences associated with the complete part will be obtained by assembling correctly
the partial sequences associated with the different basic shapes (see Section 5.1).
If some partial sequences associated with the basic shapes are not valid because
there is a tool–part collision or the tolerance specifications are not met, these partial
sequences are eliminated and consequently it will not be necessary to analyse the
complete sequence(s) containing them. Moreover, with the aim to reduce the number
of complete sequences to be analysed, several rules were developed to accelerate the
Number First sequence Computing

Part of bends Tolerances found time (s)
4 No 4-3-2-5 28.22
5 Yes 2-3-4-5-6 18.34
7 No 5-7-4-6-2-3-8 12.77
8 Yes 6-9-7-8-4-5-2-3 25.24
8 Yes 2-3-4-9-6-5-7-8 14.39
9 No 5-2-3-4-10-9-8-7-6 86.98
10 No 11-8-6-5-7-2-3-4-10-9 24.64
Table 3. Computing time to find a first valid sequence for several parts.
search process of valid solutions (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3). In this way, it is possible
to avoid the analysis of solutions with a higher probability of obtaining a non-valid
sequence.
On the other hand, the complete sequences obtained by the assembly of valid
partial sequences may not be valid. For this reason, the complete sequences must
finally be checked in terms of collisions and tolerances constraints. In order to reduce
the number of complete sequences to be analysed and, therefore, to accelerate the
search process, new rules are defined to order the valid partial sequences before their
assembly in a complete sequence (see Section 5.3). Finally, the valid complete
sequence that requires a lower total process time will be selected.
The presented method involves a quick search process for obtaining valid
sequences and avoids analysing all possible bending sequences. Table 3 shows several
checked parts and the computing time to find a first valid sequence.
Another advantage of the developed system is that it allows the user to search
valid sequences by using one or more constraints independently. In this sense, it is
possible to search valid sequences by only taking into account tool–part collisions,
tolerance specifications or both. In any case, the sequences can be ordered by total
bending process time.
Future work will apply a similar methodology to study parts with bends in
different directions. For it, it will be necessary to define new 3D basic shapes and
to do a 3D collision analysis.
Acknowledgements
This paper was part of the results of a Spanish State Commission for Science and
Technology Research Project (Ref. 1FD97-0677) on the punching and bending plan-
ning of sheet metal.
References
Alva, U. and Gupta, S. K., 2001, Automated design of sheet metal punches for bending
multiple parts in a single setup. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17,
33–47.
De Vin, L. J., De Vries, J. and Streppel, T., 2000, Process planning for small batch man-
ufacturing of sheet metal parts. International Journal of Production Research, 38, 4273–
4283.
De Vin, L. J., De Vries, J., Streppel, A. H. and Kals, H. J. J., 1992, PART-S, a CAPP
system for small batch manufacturing of sheet metal components. In Proceedings of 24th
CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, Copenhagen, pp. 171–182.
De Vin, L. J., Streppel, A. H. and Kals, H. J. J., 1994a, Tolerancing and sheet bending in
small batch part manufacturing. Annals of the CIRP, 43, 421–424.
De Vin, L. J., De Vries, J., Streppel, A. H., Klaassen, E. J. W. and Kals, H. J. J., 1994b,
The generation of bending sequences in a CAPP system for sheet-metal components.
Journal of Material Processing Technology, 41, 331–339.
Duflou, J. R., Van Oudheusden, D., Kruth, J.-P. and Cattrysse, D., 1999, Methods for
the sequencing of sheet metal bending operations. International Journal of Production
Research, 37, 3185–3202.
Gupta, S. K., Bourne, D. A., Kim, K. H. and Krishnan, S. S., 1998, Automated Process
Planning for sheet metal bending operations. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 17,
338–360.
Radin, B., Shpitalni, M. and Hartman, I., 1997, Two stage Algorithm for determination
of the bending sequence in sheet metal products. Journal of Mechanical Design, 119,
259–266.
Shpitalni, M. and Radin, B., 1999, Critical tolerance oriented process planning in sheet
metal bending. Journal of Mechanical Design, 121, 136–144.
Shpitalni, M. and Saddan, D., 1994, Automatic determination of bending sequence in sheet
metal products. Annals of the CIRP, 43, 23–26.
Wang, Ch.-H. and Bourne, D. A., 1997, Design and manufacturing of sheet-metal parts:
using features to aid process planning and resolve manufacturability problems. Robotics
and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 13, 281–294.
View publication stats

Bend Order in Sheetmetal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bend Order in Sheetmetal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Automatic determination of bending sequences for sheet

Article in International Journal of Production Research · September 2003

Carlos Rico S. Mateos

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eduardo Cuesta Gonzalo Valiño

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Non contact measurement View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Production

Automatic determination of bending

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020754031000095158

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Automatic determination of bending sequences for sheet metal parts with

J. C. RICO{*, J. M. GONZÁLEZ{, S. MATEOS{, E. CUESTA{ and

Revision received January 2003.

2. General methodology for obtaining the bending sequences

3. Analysis of the part geometry to bend

3.1. Basic channels and spirals

3.2. Compound channels and spirals

3.3. Recognition of basic and compound shapes in a bending part

(a) Type_1 (b) Type_2 (c) Type_3

(d) Type_1 (e) Type_2 (f) Type_3

Figure 1. Basic and compound geometrical shapes: channels and spirals.

3.4. Representation tree of basic and compound shapes

4.1. Punch geometry

4.2. General method for collision analysis

parametric limits. Therefore, it is necessary to study diﬀerent particular cases

4.3. Collision analysis for channels

. A must be bent before B (A*B).

4.4. Collision analysis for spirals

(e) Sequence BAY

(f) Sequence ABX

Figure 4. Constraints to avoid part–tool collisions in channels.

5. Searching the ﬁrst valid bending complete sequence

Basic spiral Level 1 No. Total part Total part

5-2-4-3 Spiral + compound 5-2-4-3-5-4-8 1 5-2-4-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 5-2-4-3-7-6-8

channel 4-5-2-3-5-4-8 9 4-5-2-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 6-4-7-5-8-2-3

5.1. Partial sequences assembly

5.1.1. Assembly of partial sequences at level_1

and mean Depth for the compound channel (4, 5, 8, 9) is:

5.1.2. Assembly of partial sequences among diﬀerent levels

5.2. Checking of collisions for a complete sequence

(ﬁgure 8). Therefore, the above sequence is valid:

5.3. Strategy to continue the search

Figure 8. Inﬂuence on the gripping side in part–tool collision.

6. Searching other valid bending complete sequences

In order to accomplish a simple tolerance, it is necessary to take care of the position-

7.1. Analysis of compound tolerances that aﬀect partial sequences

Type of Tolerance Constraints

Tol P-S (P, Q, R) * S

Figure 10. Types of tolerances considered and constraints imposed to accomplish

Compound Shape affected by compound

Basic and Possible Constraints Final Valid Total

5-2-4-3 – 5-2-4-3 1 5-2-4-3-(5-7-4-6)-4-8 5-2-4-3-7-6-8 197.32

7.2. Analysis of compound tolerances that aﬀect complete sequences

. Any tolerances likely to be simultaneously interpreted like a tolerance Type_2

Figure 12. Types of tolerances not considered in tolerances analysis.

8. Total time analysis for bending

stages required (punch-die pairs) and tSU is the set-up time.

Figure 14. Determination of distance of translation between two consecutive bends.

The calculation of number m of rotations B is done in order to provide handling