What is Nesting Software?

That may be a self-evident question to some, but surprisingly, there are misperceptions about what really is “nesting software,” or, more to the point, what functionality actually defines nesting software.

In this discussion, I’ll outline what basic functions are most commonly found in nesting software, and I’ll parse out what functions you can additionally find in more advanced nesting software.

1. The Nesting Algorithm (engine)– At the heart of every automated nesting software package is a nesting algorithm (formula) that looks at some quantity of parts then orients them to fit one or more sheets of material.  Interactive nesting seeks to achieve the same goal of putting parts on a sheet of material; however, the user is left to drag and drop or interactively do the thinking that automated software does.  With more automated nesting software, the user can use different nesting strategies such as just in time nesting, kit nesting or batch nesting to gain second and third level benefits (material efficiency, reduced programming time, etc.)

In some conversations, the concept of nesting software is defined very narrowly as this function.  Some manufacturers look to find this – and only this – as the solution they are looking for either out of need or unfamiliarity with nesting software in the broader scheme of things.

2. Part Entry/Input – In order to create a nest you need parts.  In order to create a dynamic nest, which needs lots of parts from different orders with unique due dates, you need a mechanism to input parts into the nesting algorithm (#1 above).  This is the part input or part entry component of nesting software.  No, it doesn’t do the nesting, but it prepares all of the parts for nesting – or specifically automatic nesting.  It also automates the process of bringing parts in from the CAD software into the nesting software, making quick and error proof work of this step.  Further this component of nesting software can “link up” with the CAD software, which may be holding 3D models making a smooth transition from CAD to CAM.

3. Order Entry – The other critical element for a nest is orders.  It’s impossible to create a nest even if you have the parts without knowing how many of each and on what material they are to be cut.  In a non-automated environment, the user keys this information into the nesting software (#1) manually.  In an advanced nesting software solution, the orders and any needed information associated with them can be automatically imported to the nesting software.

4. Output – Once the nest is created in the nesting algorithm, some type of output (NC code) needs to be generated and sent to the CNC machine for cutting or punching.  That’s the output function, and it is usually considered essential to any nesting software no matter how automated.  What, however, does make a more sophisticated nesting software stand out from a conventional post-processor type system is the degree to which the nests can be made sensitive to the functionality of the machine, among other things.  In this case the machine interface can interact with the nesting algorithm (engine) telling it the reach of the head, the distance between clamps, the nature of loading and unloading, so the nest can be more intelligently created.  Naturally, a more intelligent nest can and does mean greater material efficiency, fewer tool changes, shorter tool path, etc.

5. Knowledge Base – Finally, and ultimately central to an automatic nesting software – and not present in a more interactive software – is a Knowledge Base.  It is, as the name might imply, the knowledge encyclopedia or warehouse of everything that is needed to be known about the cutting conditions to enable an automated process.  Here is where you’ll find material definitions, tool definitions, special cut conditions and more.  Every part of the whole nesting software product relies on the knowledge base for information it needs to function “lights out.”

In Conclusion…

The term “nesting software” is often, and understandably, confused.  Almost like any two homonyms – words that sound alike but have different meanings – the term can have two equally true meanings, which can confuse even the most seasoned engineer and nesting software professional.

But know this – “nesting software” can mean just the nesting algorithm (engine).  In this case it may be in reference to interactive software without the benefit of automatic inputs and nesting strategies.  “Nesting software” also can mean a package that includes automation and integration into the full fabrication process.  (This is often more specifically referred to as “automatic nesting software.”  In this case the user can enjoy scaling their level of functionality to whatever levels of efficiency and productivity they desire.

To see if there is a fit for nesting software in your operation, contact Optimation.

Justifying a Nesting Software Purchase - Beyond Material Savings

One of nesting software’s the biggest benefits is material savings.  Manufacturers can see improvements in material usage of 5-15%.  That’s huge!  And that’s one of the primary reasons material savings is called upon to help make the financial case for a nesting software purchase.  There’s a clear line between use of nesting software and material saved in fabricating.

That said, what if you cut inexpensive material, where material savings isn’t a big dollar figure?  Or what if you don’t cut a large volume of material?  Then can a case be made for the purchase of nesting software?

The answer is “yes.”  Let’s talk about the other ways to make a case for nesting software that don’t hinge on material savings.

Throughput Increases

Ask yourself, would it be worthwhile to either get more product out the door or shorten the amount of time it takes to get product out the door?  If more product goes out the door, presumably revenues and profits increase.  If this is of interest to you, you may have a case for nesting software.

Throughput: Streamlining the Process

Throughput or productivity in this discussion is about the amount of product that moves through the shop and out the door within a given period of time.  Impediments to throughput or productivity come in many forms.  They can be additional processes, i.e. shearing before punching.  It can be the number of machine set ups as a function of changing sheet sizes or turret configurations, which are time consuming.  It can be the hassle and time-involved material management such as loading and unloading, transporting sheets from one process to another, stacking and/or counting sheet inventory.

Automatic nesting software can minimize or eliminate redundant or additional steps streamline the process, and increase throughput.  If the machine operator changes out the turret fewer times, if there is less need for shearing, if there is fewer sheet sizes to manage, time and therefore money is saved.  Further, because of the savings in process time, more can be accomplished in the same time and more product can go out the door increasing revenues and profits.  When making a case for nesting software fortunately, this is measurable time.  With some calculations it can be the basis for a cost justification for nesting software.

Throughput: Optimizing the Cut Path

Another method to achieve greater throughput is by looking at the cut path or tool path.  This is the time and distance used by the cutting head or turret to cut or punch the entire sheet.  Logically, the shorter the distance from start to finish the faster the cut time and the greater the throughput.  Automatic nesting software can optimize for this benefit.  Further, the time and distance can be measured and compared to existing practices – yet another tool for a cost justification.  And as above, the faster the process, the more product that can be produced, which leads to greater revenues and profits.

For more windows into throughput savings visit this page.

Programming Time Savings

Sometimes a reduction of programming time can be used as justification for the nesting software purchase.  Typically users can see a reduction of up to 90% of programming time with automatic nesting software.

There are three ways to find the cost savings here.  1) When engineers are at or exceeding capacity and either their time could be more cost-effectively used elsewhere then the better use of their time can be a basis for justification.  2) When engineers are unable to keep up with production demands and productivity and throughput suffer, then improving the speed of programming can and does increase throughput (capacity), which can be the basis for justification. And finally, 3) if the demand on programming is so great as to incur overtime costs, employing nesting software to expedite the process and reduce overtime can lead to direct, justifiable savings.  The best way to quantify the time savings is to benchmark or test the programming time in an alternative software, then use those numbers to compare to the present situation.  The difference is the cost justification.

For specifics on where to find programming savings opportunities check this out.

Just-in-Time and Other Nesting Strategies

Then there is the production flow discussion.  If your facility is seeking to optimize its production using Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma or any other sophisticated production flow techniques, nesting software is a near imperative.  Beyond drawing a direct line to any savings, it is needed to put in place manufacturing strategies that require a faster programming speed, an ability to manage variety of due dates and priorities, and the ability to tightly integrate into upstream and downstream software such as an MRP/ERP system.  The savings then become clearly apparent when the whole system – nesting software included – transforms the production facility and squeezes out waste everywhere.

In Conclusion -

As we have seen there are several ways to meet the needs of the decision makers when looking for a cost justification for a nesting software purchase.  The answer may mean looking to one or more of these approaches, running the tests, doing the analysis and creating a cohesive, compelling argument.  If that sounds daunting, that’s okay, there are experts at Optimation, who travel this road every day and can help.

How about you?

Are you looking to build a case to justify nesting software?  What’s your approach?

If Optimation can help you build a justification, please contact us.

Researching Nesting Software

Don’t you just hate it when you ask a seemingly straight-forward question, and you get a waffle-y answer like “it depends?”  I think that’s frustrating, too.  But as we know life isn’t always black and white.  And as to the question, how long does it take to research nesting software, the answer really is, “it depends.”

I will cut to the chase and give you a time frame of three to nine  months up front.  But in all fairness to manufacturers, the vendors, and the process, I need to flesh this answer out a bit to make it more constructive for everyone.

There are a number of factors that strongly influence the amount of time it takes to research and purchase nesting software.  Let’s take a look at a few, and you can use this as a checklist to plan accordingly when and if you should take on a nesting software research project.

1.  Compelling Event – One of the biggest drivers is a compelling event.  Something is happening in the future that is driving the research and decision timeline.  Most commonly that is the purchase and arrival of a new CNC machine.  If it is due in October, there really needs to be nesting software ready and waiting to drive it as soon as it is operational.  It wouldn’t be wise to start the research process any later than three months out from the delivery of a machine for reasons I’ll explain.  Other issues that would drive a timeline are a company merger, new facility, large new contract where more capacity is needed, or a new product line coming on line.
2. Bad Numbers – Another circumstance that tends to propel a timeline is the continuance or appearance of bad efficiency numbers.  If the scrap rate is too high, the machine duty cycle is too long, the programming process is creating either overtime or bottlenecks, there may be a mandate to resolve the problem by the next quarter or the next fiscal year.  These arbitrary dates hang as an endpoint for the research process.

Drivers of the research process notwithstanding, the actual process usually unfolds in a number of steps, which take time.  The steps for each nesting software vendor under consideration are:

1. Initial Discussion
2. Demonstration
3. Benchmark
4. Discussions or Visits with Vendor Customers
5. Proposal
6. Approval Process

There are a number of time consuming factors in the process.  To what degree these impact the process, creates the variance between a three month and a nine month research project.  The factors include –

1. Gathering and scheduling the financial and / or technical decision makers for demonstrations
2. Collecting parts for a benchmark
3. Gathering the financial and / or technical decision makers for customer visits or calls
4. Scheduling and visiting a customer
5. Reviewing the information presented in the demonstration
6. Reviewing the proposal with all of the decision makers
7. Getting final approval on the proposal

As you can see there are a number of steps in the process, and they can take time.  This isn’t meant as an admonition, but simply a reality check and checklist.  It’s a means to set real expectations on how long this process can take.

As I often say, most people, most companies are not in the business of shopping, and in this especially case shopping for nesting software.  They have roles, responsibilities, and commitments that need to be addressed every day – then they have time to squeeze in the “nesting software” project.  No matter how high of a priority it may be, it still needs to be managed within the context of a daily routine.  And that means it takes time to work through each research step.

By planning accordingly and managing the project, the process can move very smoothly and quickly.  The best projects start with clear expectations of what’s involved and how long it will take.

If you have questions or would like to discuss the process, contact Optimation.

Building a Justification for Nesting Software

Most project managers we meet tasked with investigating a nesting software purchase inevitably come to the point of making a case – formally or informally – about why the software should be purchased.

The project managers are typically engineers or engineering managers who have first hand experience with the nesting software.  So they are inclined to seek a solution that meets their technical needs – does it work the way I need it to?

However, and as most eventually discover, there is a second line of justification equally important to be addressed.

I’ll break down the two ways to make a case for nesting software here.

There are two ways to justify a nesting software purchase.  Each speaks to a different type of decision maker.  Each is looking at different business from a different perspective.

Technical Justification

The most obvious basis for justification of a nesting software purchase is that of the technical requirements.  The engineers, programmers and potential users are most interested in the features and functions of the nesting software.  Will it do the job they need?  Will it make their lives easier?

1. Can it perform the function I need?  Creating a nest and generating code.
2. Can it solve the technical problems I’m having now?  Here are a few, but there are many more.
1. Dynamic nests
2. Automatic Order Entry
3. Automatic Part Entry
4. JIT Nesting
5. Automatic Lead Generation
6. Common Edge Cutting
7. Reports
3. Will it improve the speed and/or accuracy of the process?
1. Order Entry
2. Part Entry
3. Nesting
4. Creating Code
4. Is it easy to learn?  Easy to use?

Financial Justification

This side of the equation is often overlooked until the technical inspection is complete, which, honestly, is way too late in the game.  These decision makers – the ones who give approvals and sign checks – should be involved at the beginning by setting priorities, establishing means of testing, and looking at how the return on investment will be determined.  They are interested in how the purchase will benefit the company overall.  What kind of financial impact will it have?

Some of the litmus tests used in a financial justification are as follows.

1.  Material efficiency gains
2. Programming time reductions
3. Increased throughput of product
4. Faster turn-around time for product
5. Faster or fewer set ups and / or machine changes
6. Fewer scraped parts due to errors
7. Less rework
8. And if JIT is employed, less inventory, faster response to change

Demonstrations, visits with existing users, benchmarks, and one-on-one discussions are all tools that can be used to build both a technical and a financial justification.

For more on justifying a nesting software purchase contact Optimation.

Solving Process Issues with Nesting Software

Many times manufacturers are using an unsatisfactory nesting solution, and they think, “I know there must be a better way.”  And they are off to search for something better – sometimes not certain what that “something better” will do for them.

If you’ve had a similar discussion with yourself or associates, here are a few points to help frame your discussion internally and/or with potential suppliers.

Nesting Software Problems Solved

Nesting software tends to solve a multitude of problems, but they often fall into one or more of a few categories.

1.  Creation of CNC Code – At the simplest level, nesting software generates NC code to drive a CNC machine – punch, laser, Waterjet, router, plasma.  The NC code communicates the X/Y coordinates for the cutting device to follow and in which order they should be cut.  Almost by definition, nesting software must do this to qualify as nesting software.
2. Creation of a Nest – Again, almost by definition, nesting software should create a nest or a layout of parts on one or more sheets of material for a CNC machine to cut or punch out.  Where nesting software varies dramatically, however, is the means, method, and degree of sophistication involved in creating that nest.  From static nests to dynamic nests from batch to JIT there is a world of difference among the ways to create that nest.  What you need hinges completely on what you want your nesting software to do. (See the following points.)

Beyond the basic functionality, nesting software can solve a number of second and third level problems accumulating significant benefits.

3. Material Efficiency – Nesting software is able to improve material efficiency by looking at viewing more orders, looking at more due dates, seeing more parts, and trying more part orientations – just to name a few options – than most humans can in a finite period of time.  Because of the ability to frankly make the math problem harder, the nest can be more efficient.  Then nesting software can add in additional cutting features like common edge cutting and nesting beneath the clamps to further gain efficiencies.
4. Capacity or Throughput Improvements – Throughput can get bottlenecked at either programming or setup time at the machine.  Nesting software can unknot these problem spots by automating the order and geometry input, automating the nest creation, and automating the machine setup and changeover processes.
5. Taming the Chaos – Nesting software can because if its speed and automation add tremendous flexibility to the production process.  If there are always “hot” parts or the schedule changes every 15 minutes, nesting software can respond immediately and the new priorities can be dealt with on the next nest.
6. Reducing Programming Time – Some shops spend hours per day preparing a nest or series of nests just to keep the CNC machines going without operation.  Nesting software can cut that time to a fraction – often one-tenth – opening up valuable engineer time to manage other priorities.
7. Keeping Orders/Kits Together – Order cohesion is a huge priority for some shops.  Whole assemblies must stay together throughout the process in order to be put together and shipped at one time.  Nesting software can automatically manage that order cohesion through the fabrication process.  No more sacrificing material efficiency or programming time just to keep kits, jobs, or orders together.

This brief list only scratches the surface of what you can expect from nesting software.  So, far from just creating code or getting a new CNC machine operational , there is indeed “something better” that can improve productivity, lower costs, and deliver better fabrication results.

Big Shop Nesting Software for Small Shops

There was a time – 10, 20 years ago – when only very large manufacturers like Caterpillar or Siemens could afford advanced nesting technology.

Conventional wisdom had it that because these manufacturers were large and had deep pockets only they could benefit from the advantages of automatic part programming and automatic nesting.  Further, the thinking has been that the “big guys” could use this technology to support lean manufacturing, demand-pull, and other revolutionary, cost-cutting initiatives.  Therefore, only they could benefit from tools that afforded less programming time, less material waste, better order cohesion, improved throughput and all of the gains gotten from advanced nesting.

Fast Forward to the 21^st Century

Now, this isn’t the case.  The best kept secret about advanced nesting software in the 21^st Century is that it is not only viable for the small shops, but affordable.  As with most technologies as innovation increases costs decline, and a product that may have seemed out of reach before is now very much accessible by all.  We can point to a few changes in manufacturing, which have laid the foundation for the democratization of advanced nesting software.

CAD Programs Ubiquitous

Today, virtually every shop has its own design software.  There is a pretty robust, full-featured CAD package in most manufacturing operations – regardless of the size of operation. As a result, several benefits to the manufacturer open up.  1) This common denominator among shops enables them to have digital part designs to export into a nesting program.  2) This development allows for standardization among part design conventions to make a nesting program function properly  – importing many parts at one time, reading processes and manufacturing specifications (grain, rotation, etc.) automatically. 3) The use of a full-featured CAD program enables small manufacturers to separate the purchase of a CAD package from a nesting package and purchase the product that best suits their needs independently.  4) There is no need to buy a bundled CAD/CAM package simply to have the CAD utility or the CAM functionality. In fact, when using a CAD/CAM bundled package, the user inevitably runs into the problem of duplicate “golden” drawings.  It’s very easy to inadvertently create two copies of a CAD file that differ in the course of a busy day.  All that has to happen is the engineer outputs manufacture-ready artwork from his CAD package and sends it to engineering.  Then the machine operator learns of a last minute change needed or finds the artwork can’t be cut as is.  The operator makes the change on the floor in the CAD/CAM package and cuts the part.  You now have two “golden” parts.  Which one gets produced the next time?

Computing Power Ramping Up

Ten or more years ago, the thought of a small manufacturer having a computer powerful enough to run an advanced nesting program was unheard of.  Only large, enterprise-sized companies could afford the Unix or Vax, room-filling computers that had the horsepower to drive a nesting program.  We certainly don’t have to look far to see evidence of the world having changed – dramatically.  When our Smart Phones have more computing power than the first astronauts had at their disposal, we know we’ve seen a revolution in technology in our lifetime.  Today, an everyday, off-the-shelf PC – even without the latest capabilities in speed and computing power – can easily handle the nesting algorithms in advanced nesting software.  And at today’s prices, most manufacturers have at least a few PCs in engineering and on the shop floor.  Thus we have eliminated one more barrier to entry for nesting software for small shops.

CNC Machines Prevalent

It has been a generation (30 years) coming, but the conversion from NC to CNC among the fabrication equipment population is complete.  Even the population of used equipment still in the marketplace, is driven by computer numeric controls.  And where there is this almost universal demand for NC code to drive the equipment, there is a similar need to provide it through advanced part programming. Because manufacturers in small shops have to provide code, they have the golden opportunity to optimize that program through advanced nesting software.  By taking one more step with scalable nesting software, the path to greater savings in material and programming is made clear.

Why Advanced Nesting Software?

Based on these arguments, it seems reasonable that there isn’t a technology-based, or budget-based reason to prevent a small manufacturing shop to consider advanced nesting software.  The next, and seemingly obvious question, would be “why?”  Is advanced nesting software applicable in a small shop environment?

There are several reasons to consider this option.

1. Tame the Chaos

We hear from manufacturers all the time that everyday is an “adventure.”  The schedule is changing every 15 or 30 minutes.  What was “hot” this morning is not as important as what is “hot” at noon.  Priority customers, rework, keeping orders together, downstream priorities, and managing the every day flow of work creates a lot of chaos.  Stress.  Advanced nesting software can tame the chaos by managing the priorities and reworking the flow of parts and nests for the engineers when something happens to upset the schedule.  Depending on the unique circumstances there are a number of advanced nesting tools that can be leveraged here including Batch and JIT Nesting to name just two.   Imagine being able to respond to changes in production demand the very next machine cycle.

2. Control Order Priorities

Often deciding which parts are cut first can be a very subjective process.  The machine operator may do the “easy” jobs first regardless of what’s needed first.  The customer who screams the loudest may get his job pushed in front of others – that may have a very legitimate claim to first priority.  Orders may be segregated by job, product, customer or order just to keep the machine off-loading manageable with no attention paid to priority or nesting efficiency. Then there are those shops that just to keep it simple they handle orders on the first-in-first-out basis.  Though very democratic, it may not reflect the true priorities of the orders. Wouldn’t it be great of the nesting software could look at all of the orders and all of the priorities and due dates, and manage the creation and flow of nests accordingly?  It can.  Advanced nesting software can act as the order priority arbitrator and deliver the optimal result.

3.  Reduce Programming Time

Unlike enterprise-sized manufacturers, small shops typically have finite manpower.  More often than not, each person wears multiple hats.  We’ve talked to CEOs that do the programming for example.  The solution to stretching the manpower comes in a number of forms.  It can mean long hours, and/or the use of nesting and programming short cuts.  The programmer may create one nest for a set of parts, save it, and run it over and over.  This saves time but sacrifices flexibility and possibly material efficiency.  The programmer may program one part at a time and run it.  This keeps the machine cutting, but at the cost of a lot of programming time and possibly material efficiency.   These work-arounds work, but at what cost?

In those uniquely, resource-pressed small shop environments, advanced nesting and programming software can make a huge difference with tools that cut programming time by up to 90% and maintain or improve material efficiency and throughput.

4.  Improve Material Efficiency

Small shops with no nesting software or a nesting-aiding interactive software probably have pretty good material efficiency.  Why?  Because a programmer if time is available can spend the time to drag and drop, twist and turn, move and shift each of the parts to create a nest.  And with enough time, he is able to create a pretty efficient nest.

The challenge arises when there are more than a few parts to consider, and he has to look at keeping orders either separate or try to mix them intelligently.  Then he needs to look at the sheet sizes and determine which would be best.  Or should he use a remnant?  But what about the “hot” order that showed up?  Should he scrap the nests he just built to insert the new part, run it by itself, or add it to the next nest?  None of which are great options.  Even the most talented programmer would be stressed by all of the variables in place.  Most solve the problem with work-arounds as mentioned above.

The alternative would be to put all of those variables – the parts, the due dates, the hot orders, the sheet size options, and more – into a “hopper” called advanced nesting software.  Let it absorb the decision making “stress”, and the programmer can relax.  Believe it or not, it, too, will do a pretty good job – maybe even better – at material efficiency.

In Conclusion…

What have we discovered here today?  We’ve learned that the barriers to obtaining advanced nesting software that were common a decade ago, simply are not the case today.  Indeed, the equipment market is pulling small shops in the direction of using optimizing programs to drive their computer-literate equipment.  Further, we have recounted four specific ways that small shops specifically and uniquely can benefit from advanced nesting software.

If you are a small shop and would like to discuss your circumstances and see if there is a fit with your needs, give us a call.  We’d be glad to chat.

Cost Justifying a Nesting Software Purchase

Most project managers we meet, who are tasked with investigating a nesting software purchase, inevitably come to the fork in the research road where they need to make a case for the software to the boss.  Those who come equipped to management with an argument for why and how the nesting software will pay for itself in a short period of time, come out ahead for their efforts.

The question then becomes, how does the nesting software pay for itself?  Or you may be asking, really, can the nesting software pay for itself?  The answer to both questions unfolds several ways.

We’ll break the ways to make that case for cost-justification down here.

Material Savings

What is the old adage in real estate?  “Location. Location. Location.”  Well, something very similar can be applied here.  Although it’s not the only way to justify a nesting software purchase, material savings is the approach most often taken and not one to overlook.  So, we could say “material, material, material” is the first place to look for cost justification.

Nesting software can, in most circumstances, demonstrate a multiple percentage reduction in material use.  That is, a manufacturer can see is material usage drop by 5% to 15% in relatively short order with the use of effective nesting software. That percentage when multiplying it times the cost/pound, can easily represent the monthly expense saved through nesting software.  It’s important to notice that these are hard costs, real expenses, which are measurable and can be clear witness to the impact the nesting software is having on the amount of material used.  A perfect basis for cost justification.

How do you know how much material a nesting software will save?  Ask for a benchmark to be done.

Throughput Increases

Streamlining the Fabrication Process

Throughput or productivity in this discussion is about the amount of product that moves through the shop and out the door within a given period of time.  Impediments to throughput or productivity come in many forms.  They can be additional processes, i.e. shearing before punching.  It can be the number of machine set ups as a function of changing sheet sizes or turret configurations, which are time consuming.  It can be the hassle and time-involved material management such as loading and unloading, transporting sheets from one process to another, stacking and/or counting sheet inventory.

Automatic nesting software can minimize or eliminate redundant or additional steps streamline the process and increase throughput.  If the machine operator changes out the turret fewer times, if there is less need for shearing, if there is fewer sheet sizes to manage, time and money is saved.  Because it is measureable time, which can be multiplied times the labor costs, it can be the basis for a cost justification for nesting software.

Optimizing the Cut Path

Another method to achieve greater throughput is by looking at the cut path or tool path.  This is the time and distance used by the cutting head or turret to cut or punch the entire sheet.  Logically, the shorter the distance from start to finish the faster the cut time and the greater the throughput.  Automatic nesting software can optimize for this benefit.  Further, the time and distance can be measured and compared to existing practices  with the help of a benchmark – yet another tool for a cost justification.

Programming Time Savings

Sometimes the significant (up to 90%) savings in programming time can be used as justification for the nesting software purchase.  There are three ways to find the cost savings here.  1) When engineers are at or exceeding capacity and either their time could be more cost-effectively used elsewhere then the better use of their time can be a basis for justification.  2) When engineers are unable to keep up with production demands and productivity and throughput suffer, then improving the speed of programming can and does increase throughput (capacity), which can be the basis for justification. And finally, 3) if the demand on programming is so great as to incur overtime costs, employing nesting software to expedite the process and reduce overtime can lead to direct, justifiable savings.  The best way to quantify the time savings is to benchmark or test the programming time in an alternative software, then use those numbers to compare to the present situation.  The difference is the justification.

In Conclusion -

As we’ve seen here there are several ways to meet the needs of the decision makers when looking for a cost justification for a nesting software purchase.  The answer may mean looking to one or more of these approaches, running the tests, doing the analysis and creating a cohesive, compelling argument.  If that sounds daunting, that’s okay, there are experts at Optimation, who travel this road every day and can help.

How about you?

Are you looking to build a case to justify nesting software?  What’s your approach?

If Optimation can help you build a justification, please contact us.

Punch Nesting Formed Parts

If you are running CNC punch presses or turret punch, you may already be intimately aware of the challenges faced when programming formed features.  If not, you may be wondering if creating formed features is a viable option or how it’s done with a CNC punch press.

Either way, today’s discussion is all about cracking open the mystery behind forming features from sheet metal that can only be achieved with CNC punching.  Our discussion will roll out along these lines. We’ll first define what formed features are, then look at the issues encountered in programming them, the problems created when the program isn’t done right, and finally, we’ll wrap this up with the solution you may be looking for to this sticky challenge.

What is a Punch Formed Feature?

First a quick definition – for our conversation today, a “formed feature” is any element or attribute given to a finished part or sheet of metal that has depth.  This is to distinguish it from conventional punched holes, notches, slits, or separations that only eliminate material from the sheet or separate one sheet into pieces.  None of these last punch hits add depth or dimension to the part. Material mass is not moved, molded, or formed.  With a formed punch hit mass is moved, molded or extruded.

Examples of Turret Punched Formed Features

It’s not surprising that there are a number of methods to create a formed and get different effects.  Here are just a few to provide an overview.

• Louvers – commonly seen in air vents
• Extrusions – forming a flange around a hole in sheet metal
• Countersink holes – for connectors (screws, bolts) to lie flush with the surface
• Counterbore holes – for connectors (screws, bolts) to lie flush with the surface
• Knockouts – for electrical wiring to be run through
• Beads – extended linear recesses
• Hinges / Hinge mounts
• Card edge – for card insertion
• Coining – creating a formed object by fusing two sheets with pressure
• Forming – forcing a relief shape
• Stamping
• Screw holes – for receiving a threaded screw
• Shear buttons – cut guides for easy shearing downstream

As you can see, there are many options to literally build in function to a part through forming features in the metal.  Adding in this value to the part or metal can through punching can improve the processing time (eliminating extra downstream processes to add these functions), make the parts easier to use, and improve the part quality and integrity by eliminating extra parts to serve these functions.

Programming Challenges with Turret Punch Formed Features                                                                                                      

Programming a turret for normal features without can be challenging in and of itself.  Add in this third degree of complexity (width, length, and depth), and we’re in a whole new ball game – indeed, we’ve moved to the major league.  Let’s look at some of the challenges a programmer will encounter – or certainly needs to be wary of – when creating part programs that include a depth or formed element.

XY Hit Order

One of the biggest challenges when punching a series of louvers – or any high profile formed feature – is the X, Y hit order.  The turret press needs to punch each louver in a bottom to top/bottom to top series to prevent smashing the louvers just punched, the machine or the tool.  Programming that order sequence is a priority with louvers.

Tool Clearance

Louvers and some other formed features have fairly tall profiles.  The programmer needs to be certain he’s clearing that height when the turret passes overhead.  If the turret with the tools including the high station tools isn’t sufficiently elevated to clear the formed feature, again the part, machine, or tool could be damaged.

Turret Configuration

Formed features are typically created with high station dies.  That is, the tool has a taller, longer profile than conventional tools to accommodate the depth of the negative image (the formed part).  This presents an interesting challenge when configuring the tool turret.  The user needs to keep the stations nearest the high station die empty to prevent collateral interference when the high station die is use.  You don’t want to accidentally use three tools when you only want to punch with the high station die.

Multi-Hit or Pre-Punch Programming

In the case of a hinge, the part’s metal “fingers” that wrap back and hold the loose hinge are hit multiple times in the same location to achieve the 3D effect from a 2D sheet.  In the case of a countersink hole the feature is hit repeatedly on center at different depths to achieve the recessed hole for the joiner head to lie in.  With an extrusion, the metal is slit with a punch hit first to create the hole, and then a second hit extrudes part of the metal along the edges out of the interior surface to create a flange and a smooth surface.  The point is that multiple hits are done in a specific order and in the same location.  In all circumstances they require intelligence in the part program to remain on center, be sensitive to the hit order, and be aware of the Z depth when repeating the hits.

Sheet Stability and Sheet Hit Order

Imagine a sheet that requires hundreds of hits – conventional and formed.  In what order do those hits need to occur to avoid sheet, part, and tool damage and retain sheet stability?  We’ve addressed the former a bit, so we’ll now turn to sheet stability.  As you might imagine creating formed parts or features adds additional stress to the sheet’s integrity, simply because you’re bending and stretching the metal and naturally creating weak or stress spots in the sheet.  Punching too close to those already stressed spots when completing the nest can and does fracture the parts or cut loose parts that can cause tip ups.  The challenge for the turret program is to both plan the punch sequence or punch tool path correctly and include sufficient and adequately sized tabs to retain sheet integrity.

Punching the Clamps

By now you’ve planned your hit sequence to avoid all of the above dangers, programmed the nest, sent it to the machine and you hear this: the sound of the machine punching the clamps.  Just as in programming for regular parts, with those that are formed need to be positioned to avoid the clamp area.  It’s an easy oversight when you’re watching all of the other dynamics, too.

The Answer to Punching without Pain

The secret to managing all of the above situations is to use intelligent punch nesting software with tool management.  You can set the software parameters to best suit your needs – to avoid the clamps, to maintain sheet stability, etc. The software will plan for these events and proactively warn you if there are any potential hazards.

It is possible.  There is punch nesting software with the intelligence to manage all of these nuances.  The secret to success is in the knowledge base that acts as an encyclopedia of your manufacturing environment – turret stations, tools, clearances, reaches, etc. and builds each nest relying on facts from the “encyclopedia.”  You can calibrate the performance to your liking then trust the nesting software to act according to your plan.

Aside from the time and headaches, this degree of automation can save huge percentages in material, but that’s a discussion for another day.

What’s Your Experience?

How has nesting for your CNC turret punch been working for you?  Do you manage formed tools?  Here’s your opportunity to weigh in on the conversation.

The Alternative

If your current situation isn’t satisfactory, or you think there might be a better alternative, contact us.  We’ve been doing automatic punch nesting for decades.  We’d be happy to share our insights and work with you on a project. Contact Optimation.

5 Generations of Nesting Software

When researching nesting software, it is very common for project managers to see all nesting software – even dynamic nesting – as the same.  However, the nesting software marketplace reality is very different.

As you might expect with all software, nesting software has evolved tremendously over the last thirty years.  What you need to know is that it has gone through five generations of evolution, and all five generations are still on the market today.  What you need to know is how to identify each generation, what each generation does and doesn’t do for you, and how each would solve your nesting needs.  It is the only way to make an informed, wise purchasing decision.

The generations are distinguished by the approach to nesting – how the algorithm addresses each part, optimizes for efficencies, and ultimately creates the nest.

First Generation - Rectangular Nesting

What is it? Rectangular Nesting “draws” a rectangle around the part at the largest height and width. It treats the part geometry as the rectangle, not the real shape of the part when placing the part on a nest.

Advantages. Rectangular Nesting is satisfactory if and when your parts are primarily rectangular in shape.

Challenges. This process does not consider arcs, holes, or other non-rectangular variations in the part when nesting. Similarly, rectangular nesting does not create the opportunity for interlocking of parts. A common example of interlocking parts are two L-shaped parts, one rotated 180 degrees, locking together like puzzle pieces. Also, holes are not filled with standard rectangular nesting software.

Second Generation - First Fit Nesting

What is it? First Fit Nesting Heuristics (algorithms) create an ordered list of parts. Most often the list is ordered from the largest part to the smallest part. The First Fit Nesting heuristic places the largest part in the list on the nest first, then the next largest and so forth. If the second largest part doesn’t fit, the software moves down the list to the first part that will fit; hence the name “First Fit.” Additionally, when considering the part for placement the nesting tool chooses from several pre-set rotation options (90°, 180°, 270°) to find the best fit. Best fit is defined as rotation that brings the center of gravity closest to the lower left corner (or other specified datum point).

Advantages. The First Fit Nesting approach is more automated than manual nesting and can be less time consuming.

Challenges. There are several limitations to the First Fit Nesting tactic. It is impossible to create a single list that will reflect all of the demands on the production schedule, i.e. due dates, hot parts, while maintaining a largest to smallest part order. Nesting mathematics is very complex. Since 50 parts can be nested in more than 10¹⁰⁰ alternative ways, this single list is only one of the many possible nests and is extremely unlikely to be close to the optimal solution.

Another challenge is the limited number of part rotation attempted. As an example, assume a rotation setting of 10 degree increments – 10, 20, 30, 40, etc. – and can only be rotated in those increments. If a part must be rotated 92° to fit, the part would be rejected as not fitting in the space available. If the software is given a large number of rotations, the time to nest the parts can become impractical. In short first fit heuristics are blind and are not able to consider multiple requirements simultaneously.

Despite these limitations, the first fit heuristic is used widely by a number of nest software suppliers. The reason that this second generation heuristic is used so much is that it is easy to code and easy to understand. Third, fourth and fifth generation nesting technology is very complex.  Many second generation software suppliers offer multiple variations of the first fit method, which they consider as different nest algorithms. The user can run the parts through one algorithm, see the results.  Then the user can run it through the second algorithm, see the results, and compare it to the first algorithm, and so on.  It can be pretty laborious.

Third Generation - Half Shape (True Shape) Nesting

What is it? Half Shape Nesting identifies a portion of the actual shape of the part. It puts the shape in the lower left corner of the space available and identifies the minimum “X” and minimum “Y” coordinates where the next part can be placed. Often Half Shape nesting is called True Shape nesting because it uses the actual part boundary as it places the part. However, only half of the part shape is considered. Only the left side and bottom of the part is examined to determine how well it fits with adjacent parts. The top and right side are ignored until another part is placed next to it. In Half Shape Nesting algorithms, the parts already placed on the nest remain stationary and only the newly inserted part is considered for placement and rotation.

Advantages. Half Shape or True Shape Nesting is a more real-world approach than Rectangular Nesting, because it takes into consideration half of the actual shape of the part during placement. When the part shape is used, the nesting tool can find greater material savings advantages by rotating the part. It also opens up the possibility of greater nesting efficiency.

Challenges. Half Shape or True Shape Nesting comes up short in its ability to make evaluations about the full shape of the part. Some questions it fails to answer include: Is the next part the best part to select for this location? What is the best orientation for a group of parts? Half of the part may fit well with existing parts on the nest at some odd orientation, but that may cause subsequent parts to cascade into a random inefficient

Fourth Generation - Multi-Dimensional Combinatorial Nesting

What is it? Multi-Dimensional Combinatorial Nesting is another automatic nesting technique. The software uses mathematical fathoming to eliminate alternatives that do not need to be considered. See the Flash presentation for a full explanation of fathoming. The nesting software automatically and intelligently considers only those part combinations (nests) that take into consideration machine efficiency, schedule demand, order completion, material efficiency and many more real world requirements. Part layout solutions that are outside of the optimal solution set are simply not considered. In this approach, the production priorities are part of the expert knowledge base in the nesting software enabling it to make intelligent decisions. Due dates, hot parts, machine efficiency, material cost, part attributes and more are evaluated then optimized into a nest or series of nests that the optimal solution to the user’s requirements.

Advantages. This method significantly reduces programming time and retains the best possible results for all considered factors – schedule, material, order completion, etc. Benchmarks show 8% to 16% higher material utilization over other methods.

Challenges. While the technology can be simplified and used in any environment, the expert system technology can best be leveraged by fully integrating the system with other manufacturing systems such as ERP/MRP, CAD and other common manufacturing tools. Training and a good support system is necessary to gain the maximum benefit from the technology.

Fifth Generation - Vision Emulation

What is it? Vision Emulation is a feature of fifth generation nesting technology. Vision Emulation Nesting “sees” the actual full shape of the part and makes logical conclusions about it, just as a human looking at the part would. The process is modeled after human vision and decision making.

Vision Emulation looks at the full shape of the part and the space available on the nest, then determines if there is an optimal fit.

Vision Emulation also evaluates the part to determine if and how much rotation is needed to provide an optimal fit. The actual part shape and the shape of adjacent parts is used to determine the optimal orientation. Multiple parts may be viewed on one time. A part could be rotated 123.456 degrees to achieve an optimal fit. This process eliminates the time consuming trial and error process of rotating the part in hundreds of small increments to check for fit. To understand the advancement that Vision Emulation provides, imagine putting a puzzle together in the dark. Without the ability to see the puzzle piece, you would have to try many orientations to determine if the part fits. Vision Emulation is like turning on the lights.

Advantages. Visual Emulation can automatically find occasions to reduce material waste by seeing parts to nest in the appropriate voids. It naturally reduces the nesting time by allowing the optimal placement to be seen – unlike previous generation nesting – by only trying reasonable shaped parts and orientations that are optimal.

Questions?

Contact Optimation for a discussion of the best nesting algorithm for you.

What Makes Dynamic Nesting "Dynamic?"

Dynamic Nesting is one of those ubiquitous terms that often has different meanings depending on who you are talking to and what their previous experiences have been. The term “dynamic” can point to three different attributes of the nesting process – 1) the shape and variety of parts, 2) the management of due dates and priorities, and/or 3) the mixing of  orders.

Optimizing Sheet Metal Sizes and Inventory

Managing sheet inventory is one of the many ongoing challenges for fabricators.  They don’t want to consume their cash flow and floor space with too much inventory.  Likewise, no one wants to impede production by not having what is needed readily available.

Specifically, the first challenge is to have sufficient sheet quantity on hand.  The second challenge is to have the right sizes available.  The right size is defined as sheets sufficient in area to meet the need, but not too large or ill shaped that there is excessive scrap.

Engineers and programmers have struggled with this problem since the dawn of fabrication.  And there isn’t an easy solution to it, unless or until you turn to nesting automation to provide the answers.

The Case of the Shipbuilders

The right-sized sheet problem plays out on a very large scale for builders of ocean-going vessels.  Here’s the challenge they face.  The plate material they are cutting is 0.1-8” thick.  Because their product is mostly steel, raw material expense is very high – so there is no room for waste.   In order to reduce the waste, they order custom plate sizes directly from the steel mill.  There is a six month lead time from order to delivery for their material.   Their process is to first complete the design of the metal parts of the ship and nest these parts while the remainder of the design details is being completed.   This allows them to customize the plate size to the nest with a special feature called plate cutback.   This feature starts by providing the nesting system with hundreds of discrete plate sizes to pick from.   The nesting software  picks the best plate size for the parts being nested and then if there is any waste at the edges of the plate, it cuts the plate back to a perfect fit.   This process helps attain the highest possible material efficiency, but at a cost that only very large volume producers can afford.   First the plate sizes are custom and will cost more per pound than standard sizes.   The second cost is that the plate must be tracked from receiving into production to make sure the correct parts are cut from the plate.   Finally, this process requires long lead times be built into the production process; in the case of shipbuilding, this is not a problem, but most products are produced in much shorter time frames.

This planning process allows them to know what size and how many plates the parts they want to cut will need long before the torch is fired up and parts are cut.

The Sheet Size Selector

It is possible to do something similar and avoid the some of the problems of the ship building model.   The extra cost for sheet and plate sizes are mostly associated with the width of the material.   This is due to the fact that steel mills like to produce in quantity and offer best pricing on standard width material.   Most flat steel begin as a coil of a certain width.   Sheet stock is produced by a cut-to-length process that sets the length of the sheet.   This cut-to-length process is often done after the coil leave the steel mill.   The cost of changing a length is small compared to the cost of changing the width of a coil previously produced.   This means that custom lengths are much more cost effective that width changes.

Using this fact, a strategy of allowing the nesting software to select the optimal length is a practical way to determine what lengths with standard width should be inventoried.

If you are lucky enough to have a cut-to-length coil line, it is even possible to customize the length for every nest.   If not, you can select an optimal set of lengths from a large range of lengths that fit you machines and your parts optimally.

Selecting from standard widths is also included in this process.   The result is a set of sheet sizes that fit your part set optimally.

One drawback of this process is that you must know the part mix you will be produce for long enough to purchase and stock the raw material.

Working with Your Steel Service Center

Another approach is to build a relationship with your steel service center where they keep the various coil widths you need in stock.   If the steel service center can deliver quickly, order the optimal width and custom lengths as you need them.   If delivery times are too long, select a group of sizes and keep the minimum amount of inventory of each size and reorder as you use each size.   The nesting software will pick the optimal size from your available stocked sizes.   As you nest on material, the sizes you use most will be replenished as you reorder; this will allow you to keep a low inventory on site that is dynamically replenished by your steel service center.   The result will be an optimal mix of raw material.

In Summary…

There is no need to guess about something as costly as material inventory when there are tools to quickly and easily get the answers you need to make informed decisions.

How about you?

How do you forecast material needs?  What tools do you use?  How is it working for you?

If Optimation can be of assistance in better managing your material inventory, contact us.

This manufacturer has several options to resolve his capacity issue.  Maybe you can think of a number of them.  We’ll review some options here, and you can decide for yourself, what would be the best solution.  Finally, let’s assume that turning the business now isn’t an option.

Capacity Solutions for Sheet Metal Production

1.  Outsourcing – The lifeblood of all job shops is their ability to extend capacity on demand for and manufacturer.  And it is certainly an option here.  The OEM would need to assess the costs, turn around time, and quality of any outside vendor before pursuing this choice.
2. Adding Equipment – If sheet metal fabrication is the bottleneck, then possibly adding more equipment and more production lines would alleviate the problem.  That is assuming the machine cycle time and not the programming (order and geometry / code inputs and nesting) is the bottleneck, then more equipment would be a possible solution.  The OEM would need to look at floor space, the capital investment budget, and lead time for installation and training before moving on this.  Further, he would need to be certain that the demand is sustained so to justify the investment over time.
3. Getting More Capacity from Existing Equipment – Another approach, and this may be the first one before any steps are taken, would be to determine if the existing equipment is at full or near capacity.  Is it running at 80-90% of its duty cycle – barring time for maintenance?  Most manufacturers we speak to find that this isn’t the case.  Even if they don’t keep meticulous records, they can tell if the CNC equipment is running 30, 50, or 70 percent of the time.  If this is the case – and most often it is – there is a golden opportunity to improve capacity by improving cycle time.  Look at the turret changes, the delay or wait time for programs, the load/unload time, and/or the downtime for machine breakage as areas for improvement.
4. Using Automatic Nesting Software to Increase Capacity – One of the best tools to help increase the capacity in general and specifically of existing equipment is through efficient use of automatic nesting software.  It can improve the duty cycle up to 90%, thereby creating one of several outcomes depending on the manufacturer’s needs for improved throughput or cost reduction.  Automatic nesting software can help improve capacity many ways.

• It can improve actual machine cutting time
• Implementing Common Punching or Common Edge Cutting, which shortens the cut time – and the material use.
• Efficient tool path management (a logical, linear path from one sheet edge to another), which again shortens the cut time.
• It can reduce operator interaction with the setup
• Intelligent Tool Management with the use of preferred tool sets, which minimizes tool changes and turret movement
• It can improve load/unload time
• With intelligent remnant management, minimizing the use of remnants
• Smart skeleton cut up and disposal, making disposal of the skeleton quick and easy
• Managed part unload with trap doors and automatic unloaders, also making removal and sorting of finished parts quick and simple.
• It can eliminate wait time for nest program
• Automatic order entry
• Automatic batch or JIT nesting
• Automatic or batch input of geometry

What does more capacity mean?

Greater capacity can mean a lot of different things to different manufacturers.  What they do with the extra capability is all dependent upon the economics of their situation.  Here are a few examples.

• More product can be produced with the existing equipment
• More can be accomplished with fewer machines and a smaller fabrication footprint freeing floor space for other operations
• New machine purchases can be put off until the demand is really warrants them
• Superfluous existing machines can be decommissioned or reserved for capacity peaks only.
• In the case of shearing before punching, the shearing operation can be minimized or eliminated, freeing up floor space, manpower, and speeding throughput.

In Conclusion …

The choice of how to increase capacity is a decision that will be unique for each manufacturer.  What we have discussed today is that there are a number of solutions – including automatic nesting software – as tools that can add more “floor space” and get more product out the door.  It is the savvy manufacturer that considers his options and chooses wisely.

How about you?

How are your capacity challenges handled?  What solutions have you implemented?  What advice would you give to someone in this situation?  Let us know.

If Optimation can help you explore nesting software as a potential solution, let us know.

Cutting Delivery Time with Nesting Process

We recently met a manufacturer, who struggled to get product out in a timely fashion.  If that sounds familiar, read on.  Here is his story.

Before: Order to Delivery in About A Week

This manufacturer of large industrial equipment had an established shear-to-blank, then punch process that went something like this.

An order would come in for 50 of the same part.  The part blanks would be sheared from 10 very large sheets.  This means the shear operator would 1) make two trim cuts per large sheet to square the raw material, 2) measure and cut the first blank, 3) make sure it is square and accurate, 4) repeat four more times per large sheet.  Then he would move and stack the 50 small sheets beside the punch ready for punching the internal holes.  Are you seeing how this could be time consuming and slow delivery times?

Note that on each of the 10 sheets there was room for 5 part blanks.  What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that there was a large trim or salvage strip at the bottom of each of the 10 sheets.  That was discarded.  Scrap.

Next, the programmers would send down to the machine operator the single part program to finish the interior of the part. The machine operator would run that one single part program 50 times on the turret punch – once per part blank.  He would pick up the small sheet and load the punch 50 times – one sheet at a time.   Then he would unload each of the small parts from the punch 50 times.   On and off the punch over and over 50 times.

Because of all of the material handling and single part programming, product orders typically took about a week to make it from sales order to delivery.

Problem #1:  Changing the Nesting Process 

The problem this manufacturer faced was a time consuming process that slowed down delivery. The process involved too much material handling and a shearing process that was unnecessary.  Everyone from the programmers to the machine operators were asked to look at punching sheets a different way.

The solution included a process change.  They looked at the large raw material sheet as the basis for a nest as a means to handle that one sheet just one time.  Instead of shearing to size, then punching the blanks, the fabrication team decided to create a nest that punched the exterior and interior of each part in one streamlined operation.  This eliminates lots of time-consuming material handling of shearing then punching, and it sped up the process considerably.

Process change ultimately meant the programmers embraced automatic nesting, and the machine operators handled whole sheets and unloading nests instead of single parts, saving time and effort.

 Problem #2:  Changing the Nesting Paradigm 

The other problem this manufacturer faces was programming and punching one part at a time. Previously, the production mindset focused on individual part creation by single part programming and producing many of the same parts at once.  The solution also involved a paradigm shift.

If they could do all of the punching and shearing on the turret, then they could mix parts and part orders and use common edge punching.  And if they could do this, then they could – with automatic nesting software – create the nests of many parts at once quickly and keep production moving fast.

The programmers take a “order bucket” full of all of the parts needed for a particular material that are the highest priority or have the nearest due date, then use the automatic nesting software to create the nest, do the tooling, add the tabs and create the tool path.

The transition meant the programming time was cut significantly, and the parts and orders moved through the shop much faster.

After: Part Order to Delivery in 8 Hours

When the team turned to creating dynamic nests on full sheets using common edge punching, they doubled their throughput.  And their turnaround time was cut to one shift – 8 hours.

Solution #1: Less Programming

The programmers didn’t have to create individual part programs.  The automatic punch nesting software created “multiple” part programs all at one time and in just minutes.  It assigned the tooling, created the tool path, completed the common edge punching, and inserted tabs as needed – all quickly and without human intervention.

The programmers enjoyed creating automatic nests with a dynamic selection of parts instead of lots of individual part programs.  Their work was made easier.

Solution #2: Less Material Handling

Because of the nests with multiple parts per sheet, the machine operators touched each sheet and each part only once.  The shearing process was eliminated.  And the time the product was on the shop floor was cut significantly.

The machine operators realized the bonus of handling less material every day.  Their work was made easier.

In Conclusion…

The manufacturing facility made a conscious choice to change.  In the end they adopted a process change, a new way of programming, and new technology.  They gained better throughput for the company and a better quality of work life for the programmers and operators.

How about you?

Would change make a difference in your plant?  Could looking at the way things are done offer some insight that would prove helpful?  Let us know what you’re thinking.

If automatic nesting and the help of some engineers that are adept at process change might help you or someone you know, contact us.

Increasing Nesting Software Integration Over Time

One of the advantages of automatic nesting software is the ability to integrate with the existing order management or scheduling system (MRP/ERP) creating a seamless upstream and downstream information flow.

One of the concerns some manufacturing engineers have is what does this functionality mean to me if I’m not using an MRP/ERP system.  Is it more than I need? Or can I start with a simpler method and work up to something more sophisticated with full integration and/or JIT?

The Four Automation Levels of MRP/ERP and Automatic Nesting Integration

The good news for all manufacturing engineers is that order entry integration with automatic nesting isn’t an on/off switch.  There are levels of integration that you can dial up or down to suit your needs.  Further, as your operation gains sophistication, you can keep up with it without making software changes.  Automatic nesting software with MRP integration is a scalable tool that can grow with you and your needs.

1. Level #1 – Manual Order Entry – Users familiar with work orders or travelers as the method of communicating orders to the shop may feel most comfortable with this approach.  The programmer or machine operator can simply key in the part number, quantity, and choose the material from a drop down or key it in for each order from any paperwork available.  If warranted, additional information, such as job number or due date, can be also be entered with the order.  The upside is a lot of control over the process.  The user can independently set the priorities or production sequence as the orders come through.  The downsides are the time consumed and the opportunity for error – a quantity of 5 parts can easily be 55 with one key stroke.
2. Level #2 – File Download – Some manufacturers have a bill of materials system or a spreadsheet where the orders and schedule are managed.  Most, if not all, of these have the ability to export their part order data into an ASCII text file which is similarly formatted to and can be opened in a Microsoft’s Excel® program.  Any and all of the information mentioned above – part ID, quantity, material, due date, etc. – can be captured and downloaded with the orders into the ASCII file from the Excel or Bill of Materials System. With this data extracted to a file, the user can easily – without rekeying it – import it into the automatic nesting software. The entire order entry process for hundreds or thousands of orders can take a matter of seconds or minutes.  The process does need to be manually initiated and managed.  Often fabricators do this once or twice a day depending on the volatility of orders.  However, it is exponentially faster and more error-proof than manual order entry.
3. Level #3 – MRP/ERP Integration – The next step in our scalable continuum is integration with the MRP/ERP system.  For those fabricators leaning toward a JIT fabrication model and JIT nesting, this may be the process best for you.  In this model, the automatic nesting software queries the MRP/ERP system at set intervals (every hour, shift, day) as set by the users, for new orders that appear in the MRP/ERP system.  If new orders are found, they are downloaded to the nesting software for processing.  The orders – again with the same information as above – are triaged based on either arbitrary priority settings in the MRP/ERP system or by due date.  This ensures that the hottest parts are handled first, while at the same time the material efficiency, and order cohesion are maintained as well. 
4. Level #4 – Full JIT Integration – For the fabricator fully embracing the JIT model, full JIT integration between the MRP/ERP system and the automatic nesting system would be a strategy worth investigating. In this model, the information flow is not only from the MRP/ERP system to the nesting software but the reverse happens, too.  The nesting software reports back to the MRP/ERP software what parts have been nested and material used.  The quantities used are then deducted from the “quantities needed” for both parts and material inventory.  And in a real-time manner all systems are current with the realities on the shop floor.

In Summary….

So, the solution for any one fabrication operation may be different or as is likely with most organizations it may be an evolving process.  The best solution for most is a product that can meet you where you are with your systems and needs today, and grow with your needs as your operations change.

How about you?

What kind of order entry system do you have?  Is it manual or automated or some combination thereof?  Is it working?  What would you like to see?  Join the conversation.

In the meantime, if you’d like to pursue this conversation, contact us.  We’d be happy to talk.

Common Edge Punching for Turret Punches

Automatic nesting with common edge punching is a fairly recent development on the market.  You may already be familiar with automatic common edge cutting for lasers.  This is a similar concept; however, it is applied to CNC punch nesting.

What is Common Edge Punching?

Common edge punching is the punching of two adjacent parts with one tool hit within a nest.  The idea is to save machine time by eliminating the second tool hit and to reduce material scrap by eliminating the skeleton otherwise between the two adjacent parts.

How Does Common Edge Punching Work?

The process of common edge punching is fairly involved.  In sum, here are the steps.

•  Identify parts that share sufficient entity (part edge) length and arc to warrant common edge punching.
• Align the parts adjacent in the nest.
• Eliminate the tool hits that are redundant between the two adjacent parts.
• Leave enough material or space between hits to create tabs to maintain sheet integrity.
• Tool the part(s) for punching.
• Program the tool path to make the remaining hits.

As you might imagine doing this manually can be quite time consuming and error prone. Most programmers or engineers find it cost-prohibitive to venture into manual common edge punching.  The time and risk involved is simply not worth the material saved.

Unless you’re doing common edge punching automatically.

How is Automatic Common Edge Punching Different?

Automatic common edge punching accomplishes all of the above tasks based on the preferences of the user – automatically and without user intervention.  For example, the user may choose to common edge punch a particular part with itself or “same part,” with other parts whose common edge is included (shorter than) the part or parts that share the same length entity.  The automatic common edge punching then selects the appropriate tool, tools the parts, eliminates redundant hits, and creates the tool path.  Everything is completed in a matter of seconds.

The secret to success is in the software logic.  It can and does “thinks” through the nesting problem just as a human would.  In a matter of seconds it has the optimal nest with common edge punching based on the rules for cutting the programmer has put in place.

The rules would include which parts are eligible for common edge punching and when and where tabbing would be applied.

What are the Benefits of Common Edge Punching?

There are two main benefits to automatic common edge punching.

1. The first, and maybe the most obvious, is material savings.  When common edge punching, the skeleton typically left between adjacent parts is removed.  That extra material is then available for more parts netting a higher material efficiency.  As a result there is usually significantly less scrap.  We’ve seen manufacturers save several percentage points in material utilization with just common edge punching applied.
2. The second is machine time.  With fewer hits and a shorter tool path, the nest can be cut more quickly.  This would improve cycle time and throughput for the machine.

What Does it Take to Do Automatic Common Edge Punching?

The tools that need to be in place for effective automatic common edge punching are CNC turrets, a CAD software package, and an automatic nesting software capable of managing the turret, tool path, and common edge cutting properties intelligently.  After the pieces are in place and the rules set, the process can flow uninterrupted with little if any intervention.

How about you?

What are your experiences with common edge punching?  Have you tried it manually or with software?  Join the conversation.

About Optimation’s Common Edge Punching

If you’d like to know more about this automation tool, contact us.  We’d be happy to discuss it further with you.

Comparing Nesting Software with Benchmarks

When researching nesting software, most manufacturers turn to a benchmark as an objective, analytical tool to compare products.  This article is a primer on benchmarks – what are they, how are they best used, and what every manufacturer should know going into a benchmark.

What is a Benchmark?

A benchmark is a “test run” of sheet metal software using your parts, quantities, materials, guidelines.  It is a perfect opportunity to try out nesting software before you buy.

How is a Benchmark Done?

The manufacturer collects a real world, production-ready set of parts, order quantities, due dates, materials, and cutting or punching requirements.  That is, he is assembles everything necessary to simulate the cutting of these parts.  The manufacturer sends this data to the nesting software company  to do a trial run or simulated run of these parts through their software.  The results are returned to the manufacturer for comparison with their software and other nesting software products.   

What Do You Look for in a Benchmark?

A benchmark is a tool, where you can get “proof of concept.”  That’s a fancy term for seeing if the sheet metal software will do what you want it to do. Will it accommodate your unique needs – your parts, machines, orders, and timelines?   How long does it take to create the nests? Tip: Ask to see the nest compile in real time.  How fast do the nests run?  What kind of material efficiency can the software provide?  How does the software company achieve the material efficiency it demonstrates?  Can it handle changes in part revisions, hot orders, new quantities? How does it do it?   Can the software handle different manufacturing scenarios, i.e. with or without common edge cutting?  What is the difference in efficiency? How automatic is the nesting process?  How much manual intervention is needed?  A benchmark will answer these questions.

How are Benchmark Results Presented?

Typically benchmark results are presented in an online meeting forum where you and any associates can see the nests, ask questions, and evaluate the results.  Additionally, copies of the nests and summary data can be provided for further analysis or distribution internally.

What Do You Do with Benchmark Information?

Benchmark data, in addition to providing comparative information among nesting software providers, is ideal for use in a financial justification of the purchase.  There’s no better way of demonstrating financial justification or return on investment than a benchmark. Why? Benchmarks are excellent at contrasting the material use or time expenditures over your present approach.  Here are a couple examples of how this is typically done.

• Improved Material Efficiency through Common Cutting / Punching
• One way to demonstrate justification for a purchase is through increased material efficiency.  The money saved with new nesting software, which can offer better material efficiency, can typically pay for the investment in the software in a matter of months.  So, let’s say your current solution can’t do safe, effective common edge cutting or punching.  With a benchmark you can demonstrate the use of this tool with your parts and see precisely how much material this feature can save per material, per month or year.  Then you can draw a straight line from material savings to cost justification in your proposal.

• Improved Throughput through Nesting
• Another way to demonstrate savings is by benchmarking a single part programming cutting process against nesting.  Often with dynamic nesting, you can put many parts on a sheet, put parts in the trim strip, put parts inside of parts, and common edge cut/punch parts.  By going this direction, programming and cutting time are cut significantly and production out put is increased.  Here you can draw a straight line from the greater production to the cost justification in your proposal.

These are just two ways to build a financial justification using benchmark data.  There are as many approaches to this as there are manufacturing companies.  The important thing to remember is that benchmarks are a valuable tool when compiling a justification for nesting software.

What Not to Do When Benchmarking

Creating a useful benchmark result is really a partnership between the manufacturer and the nesting software provider.  It is truly a team effort to create a set of results that have meaning and relevance to the manufacturer.  With this in mind here are a couple “dos” and “don’ts” to be cognizant of throughout the process.

Avoid the pitfalls that have befallen many project managers by having reliable, comparable data with which to evaluate your benchmark results.  For a benchmark to be effective, useful, comparable, or valuable in a discussion of financial justification with your boss – and maybe his boss – it is imperative for the project manager to have an apples-to-apples comparison of nests.  The most helpful is to have a set of parts for  that is reflective of a slice of real production.  (As mentioned earlier, this can be a day or a week’s production – whatever is a representative variety of parts.)  Then give the nesting software company these parts, due dates, materials, cutting/punching process, part constraints, trim requirements, etc. that you used in your slice of real production run.  Now you can compare the results, and they will be meaningful.

How to Select the Right Parts for a Benchmark

Sometimes manufacturers pick “any old parts” for a benchmark because they are busy, doing their jobs and simply don’t have the time and energy to give concerted thought to planning a benchmark.  This is completely understandable, but not recommended.  A few quick guidelines could keep this process still quick & easy but will deliver much more actionable results.

1. Don’t pick sheet-sized parts, unless you’re looking for a proof of concept for single part programming.  There’s no art or technology that would be tested to nest one, single, large part.
2. Don’t pick lots of rectangles, unless all you have is rectangles.  This is a baseline sheet metal function.  Any simple nesting software can do rectangular nesting.  Using rectangular parts exclusively won’t discriminate among competitors.
3. Pick enough parts & orders to fill multiple sheets – using 10-20 sheets is a good place to start.  This way you can tell how much time it took to program the parts and create the nest.  This will also provide the sheet metal software the opportunity to work with many combinations of parts and quantities to demonstrate real material efficiency with advanced nesting algorithms.
4. Let the sheet metal software company know if there are particular constraints on certain parts, i.e. grain constraints, fixed leads, or long & skinny parts, which need to be across the slats. Let the nesting software company know about these rotation constraints, so you can see how it performs under real world conditions.
5. If at all possible, set aside 15 minutes to talk through the benchmark with the sheet metal company before they start on the benchmark.  Let them know what you’re hoping to achieve, what you’re looking for, and where your current challenges are.  Without a clear direction of where you’re going, they will be hampered to give you the most relevant answer. Then let them come back with results to meet your needs.

In Conclusion….

Benchmarking is an excellent tool, free to project managers and provided by nesting software vendors, to provide the real world analysis  needed to make an informed purchase decision.  Don’t be shy about asking for a benchmark, you have a right to know how any nesting product will perform with your parts.

How about you?

Have you had a benchmark performed?  What kind of results did you get?  What was the process like?  Weigh in on the conversation.

If you’re shopping for nesting software and would like to have a benchmark performed with Optimation software, just let us know.

Increasing Yield on Sheet Metal Remnants

Sheet metal remnants (a usable piece of material remaining after parts are cut from the sheet, often referred to as “drop”) are the bane of every programmer and shop’s existence.  They are a pain to inventory, difficult to handle because of their odd shape, and a constant reminder that they need to be used or wasted.

This article offers some hope to the beleaguered programmer and operator.  There are ways to avoid having remnants in the first place, and if all else fails there are tools to help quickly dispose of them with little effort.

Here we go.

How to Avoid Creating Sheet Metal Remnants

As we all know the best remnant is no remnant.  In a perfect world all the parts would fill every sheet completely, and we wouldn’t have to deal with this challenge.  A zero-remnant reality may not always be possible, but there are two strategies that help avoid creating remnants in the first place.

1.      Using Filler Parts to Manage Sheet Yield and Reduce Remnants

Filler parts are parts with a less than urgent priority.  They are parts that can be made now but are made from scrap or material that would be a remnant.  There are three strategies commonly used to manage filler parts.

Filler Part Strategy #1 – Part Inventory

Creating part inventories from scrap or remnant material is the first strategy for filler parts.

Sometimes manufacturers carry part inventories of stock items to reduce setup costs or order response times. Alternatively, their production line may integrate a Kan-ban system, where part orders are cued when the part “card” indicates a need to replenish the stock.

In either approach, these parts are ideal filler parts. When a nest has unused material, extra space on the nest or material that would otherwise be a remnant can now be filled in with parts that will be used for inventory without preventing urgent parts being produced first.

Intelligent nesting software will report back to the order or scheduling system the number of parts created for each stock item. The scheduling system will then update the “quantity needed” before any additional parts are ordered to avoid overproduction.

Filler Part Strategy #2 – Higher & Lesser Grade Materials

Many manufacturers use multiple grades of material; some more costly than others. In the case of a manufacturer of industrial kitchen equipment, he may use brushed stainless steel for the exterior, visible surfaces of the cabinets and a plain finished stainless for the unseen back panels and interior parts. The brushed stainless is more expensive, but it has the same structural properties as the plain finish, so it is more than adequate as a replacement (filler) material for the plain finished stainless.

The second filler part strategy is to make good use of all of the higher grade material scrap whenever possible. To do this the manufacturer can use the scrap or remnants of the higher grade material to make parts that would otherwise be made of a lower grade stock by treating them as filler parts for the higher grade stock. In the case of the kitchen equipment manufacturer, he would make back panels and interior parts out of the brushed stainless – only when the material would otherwise be a remnant or scrapped – to prevent the expensive material from being wasted. At the end of the nesting process, the nesting software would know how many of the secondary filler parts were and were not nested.  It would return the remaining quantity to their normal, not filler, order status on the plain material.

Expensive, high grade material destined for the scrap bin has been salvaged and made into usable product components.  And expensive, high grade material remnants have been avoided.

Filler Part Strategy 3 – Future Orders

Consider a nesting environment where the engineer wishes to produce all of the parts due today only. In the case of batch nesting (creating a series of nests for multiple sheets of material from one set of part orders), as nests are built, the number of parts remaining gets smaller and smaller. Toward the end of this nesting process there will be fewer parts to nest and the nest efficiency will decrease; this is known as tail-off.  It’s also where remnants are created.

To increase the material efficiency, the programmer can allow the nesting software to look ahead at tomorrow’s orders and treat them as filler parts. The nesting software will only include the filler orders in locations in the nest where material would otherwise be scrapped, such as a remnant. Today’s orders will be the priority and will be nested first, and tomorrow’s orders will fill in the scrap areas.  This strategy blends the end of today’s production with the beginning of tomorrow’s production in a smooth and material efficient series of nests. And the opportunity for remnants is minimized.

2.      Using JIT (Just-in-Time) Nesting to Avoid Remnants

JIT Nesting is all about creating nests just as the machine that will produce the parts is ready for them – just in time.  The architecture behind this process is a never ending, always filling, real time order bucket reflecting the most current production demand.  As new orders come in they fill the order bucket.  As the machine (punch, laser, plasma, etc.) is ready to produce, the nesting software empties the bucket.  Orders and products are coming in and out in a constant flow of production – meeting needs just-in-time.

How this helps minimize or avoid remnant production may not be self-evident. The secret is constantly keeping the orders coming in so that there is never a tail-off of orders, which usually creates a remnant.

JIT nesting in practice is similar to the Future Order Filler Part strategy when used with batch nesting.  The difference is the “future orders” for JIT nesting are the orders needed for the very next nest.  Whereas the “future orders” for batch nesting may be the 2^nd shift production or tomorrow’s orders.  The window for “future” with JIT nesting is a very tight single machine cycle.

Therefore, each nest will have the advantage of pulling from the greatest pool of orders to provide the optimal sheet material efficiency.

How to Optimize Sheet Metal Remnants

As mentioned earlier, it’s hard to imagine a zero-remnant world.  So, in those cases where remnants are inevitable, here are two strategies to best manage them and make the most of this extra material.

3. Automatic Remnant Management

Advanced nesting software has the ability to automatically manage remnant creation, nesting, and use for the programmers and machine operators.  The process starts when a sheet is identified by the software user as having sufficient material to create a remnant.  The user can tell the nesting software to then generate an electronic remnant with a straight edge cut or a stepped-edge cut (see image above) to free it from the consumed, nested material.  The software then creates a unique material ID for storage among the material available to nest on.  When more parts are ordered the user or the software can “call down” the remnant by its ID, nest parts on it and send the finished nest to the machine operator as normal.

With this approach remnants aren’t lost in the system and risk damage or being scrapped.

4. Irregular Remnant Management

Not every remnant can be squared-off to a rectangular or stepped-rectangular shape.  Sometimes there are irregular-shaped remnants that result from a very large, odd-shaped part being extracted.  In these circumstances, automatic nesting software can treat the irregular shaped remnant in the same manner as a regular-shaped remnant by storing it, labeling it, and retrieving it when needed for use.  For more on irregular-shaped remnant management, see this article.

In Conclusion…

There is no reason remnants should present the problem that they often do.  There are sizable material efficiency gains to be had with effective remnant management and the application of dynamic nesting software.

How about you?

Are remnants an issue in your shop?  How do you manage them?  What’s working, and what isn’t?  Do you have any creative solutions?

If you’d like to talk more about the remnant strategies discussed here, contact Optimation.

Material Waste - Programming Time - Inventory Expenses

I recently heard about a manufacturer, who had an extraordinary material efficiency.  They consistently got 90-95% material efficiency on every sheet they ran.  Further, this was achieved with exceptionally complicated patterned/grained material.  It was an amazing feat!

First I’ll tell you how they did this and the problems they encountered.  Then I’ll walk through an easier solution.

How did they get the material efficiency?

The first question is, naturally, how did they do it?  They could be doing manual nesting and spending a great deal of time on each nest, but that’s only half the equation, they still need the right part selection to make a highly efficient nest.  They could be running lots and lots of the same or rectangular parts which lend themselves to static nests with high efficiency.  Or they could be making very large sheet-sized parts that have very little waste.

But as it turns out, none of that was the secret to their amazing material efficiency solution.  Although, they did have large parts, there was still plenty of trim. And they did do manual nesting, but even with the time spent that really didn’t account for the minimal waste.

Their solution to nesting efficiency

The very ingenious programmers tackled this problem – to get the greatest material efficiency from the expensive material with two tools.

Step 1. Use Filler Parts

The use of filler parts is a clever nesting strategy that leverages smaller parts that aren’t of a first priority nature to “fill in the holes” or use up the scrap left by other, larger parts.  Filler parts can be used applying one or more of three strategies.

1. Part Inventory – Filler parts can be those smaller piece-parts that you keep on hand or in inventory because you use lots of them, and it doesn’t make sense to do a whole run (nest or multiple sheets) of just these parts.  They make excellent parts to fill in the gaps on a large sheet, then throw in the “bucket” for future use.  Stocking a KanBan system would be a perfect application of filler parts used for inventory management.
2. Future Orders – If your nesting software can be sensitive to part order due dates, you can use parts with a future due date as filler parts.  Let’s say you fill your nest with parts due today; however, you have an unsatisfactory amount of scrap left.  You can “pull forward” orders due tomorrow or even next week as filler orders to be used when and only when there is room in the nest.
3. Premium Materials – Most shops have different grades of material – some “good stuff” and some “okay stuff.”  The good stuff is naturally more expensive than the okay stuff.  In the case of filler parts, parts designated for manufacture out of the okay stuff, could be made from the good stuff – if and only if there is sufficient scrap in the good stuff to warrant its use.  This can be easily done in the case of using brushed stainless steel for the back panel of a cabinet instead of the regular material.  The cabinet customer gets an upgrade and the better quality material is not wasted.

Inventory Problem

This manufacturer took used filler parts to supplement part inventory (option #1 above).  But there was a problem.  It seems that a quick check of the filler part inventory led them to discover that they had a 6.2 -year inventory of some parts.  And while using the filler parts is great for material efficiency, what is it doing to their cash flow and inventory costs to see that much money literally sit on the shelf?

Step 2. Use Static Nests

The programmers took the time, energy and effort to create very tight static nests (a nest that is created once, saved, and run multiple times without change) with very high material efficiency. This also contributed to the material efficiency.

Static Nest Problem

However, the problem they encountered is not unusual for static nests.  Because they are by definition static, there isn’t much if any room for change or adaptation as circumstances change – which they always do.  For example, they created a nest with parts 001, 002, & 003.  Then Part 003 gets damaged, and they need a new one.  However, this manufacturer created a whole nest with all of the parts (oo1, 002, & 003)  to get a new “Part 003.” Now they have the “Part 003” they needed, plus two extra parts – 001 & 002.  What do you do with the extra parts 001 & 002?  Put them in inventory.  [I’ve heard of another manufacturer, who had a similar situation.  His solution was to remake the whole nest, but to scrap the additional parts 001 & 002.]

The Nesting Solution

The solution to the problem is to first look at all of the costs – sheet material efficiency, programming time, and inventory – and assess the best approach to managing all of the costs at one time.  It’s very easy and naturally human to sacrifice the “off book” costs of inventory and programming time, which often aren’t as transparent and as accountable, to the much harder cost of material.  This may mean a reassessment of policies and or procedures beyond the actual tools of nesting software.

The next step is to turn to an automatic nesting software that can handle the grain pattern on the material and nest dynamically to eliminate the problem of schedule rigidity inherent in static nesting.  Dynamic nesting considers a variety of parts for each nest, and evaluates them based on several qualities including urgency, order cohesion, and material efficiency. Dynamic nesting would enable this manufacturer to create a Part 003 – and only a Part 003 – as it is mixed with other priority parts in the next nest or batch of nests.  They would not need to superfluously recreate parts 001 & 002 and put them in inventory.

Finally, if the approach of filler parts still seems viable based on the above reassessed policy, part of the solution may be using this automatic nesting software to automatically fill nests with filler parts – and track the quantities used and needed – to prevent excess inventory.

In Conclusion….

The lesson for most of us is that manufacturing is a fluid, dynamic process, which juggles many priorities and often warrants a nesting software  solution with similar fluidity and adaptability. For a perfect solution, which is in tune with the needs of the plant, the nesting solution needs to be calibrated to the environment it which it serves.  It needs to honor material efficiency, programming time, and the flexibility to change.

How about you?

Does this story ring true?  Have you or someone you know been in a similar situation?  Let us know and share your story.

If we can be of assistance in improving the fluidity or efficiency of your nesting process, let us know.

Static Nesting vs Dynamic Nesting

What’s the difference between dynamic nesting and static nesting?

They are two nesting strategies frequently used in 2D or sheet metal fabrication.  Both strategies speak to the means and method by which the parts are ordered, arranged or laid out and produced on the laser, punch, plasma, router or other fabrication equipment.

Although they serve the same need of nesting, the differences between the two approaches are striking.

Let’s Review.  

1.  Part Selection – The first characteristic that stands out is the part selection.
• In static nesting, the user selects one part or a few parts and creates one nest or unique part layout.  Then he uses that “static” or unchanging pattern of parts repeatedly in cutting one or often many of the same sheets.  The net result is a large quantity of the same parts.
• Conversely in dynamic nesting the user works with a large variety – often fluid – selection of parts over an unlimited number of nest or sheets.  Each sheet may hold a unique combination of parts – reflected both in their quantity and orientation.
2. Part Priority – This is the urgency or immediacy of need for any part and how that priority is reflected in the nests.
• With static nesting, order priority is a secondary or lesser concern.  Single parts are produced en masse, as a function of material efficiency or aggregate need.  For example, if a quantity of one of a particular part is needed, a whole sheet or many sheets of that single part or a few parts are produced.  If more are produced to fill out a sheet than are needed the remainder are scrapped or inventoried.
• With dynamic nesting individual part priority is evaluated – automatically – along with the need for material efficiency.  The part orders are managed to insure that the highest priority, often the nearest due date, order is handled first and selected to get optimal material efficiency.
3. Response to Change – Change in fabrication or manufacturing comes in many forms.  There can be a design change to a part, and order priority change as in a new due date, a sudden rework or hot part, or an equipment problem.  Any of these circumstances impact the nests and the users ability to respond to change.
• With static nesting, responding to change can be very difficult.  If a part with a new revision  is needed, the whole nest needs to be reassembled and reprogrammed.  The old, reliable static nest is of no use.  If a hot part is needed, it is either run as a single part on a sheet or the static nest is modified to incorporate it.  Most often these steps are taken manually or interactively causing delays in production.
• Dynamic Nesting, on the other hand,  is built about absorbing fluid nature of production.  If there is a new revision, a hot part, a down machine, the problem is addressed in the next nest to be created reflecting the current demand for parts if Just-in-Time nesting.  There isn’t an “existing nest” to modify or rebuild.  Each new nest is created based on the current circumstances at the time. If Batch Nesting, where a queue of many nests are lined up, the operator can delete any nests not yet produced, the changes integrated, and the nests reassembled in minutes with little or no disruption to production.
4. Speed of Nest Creation – This factor is all about the time it takes to create nests.  How long does it take to bring in the parts, assemble the orders, layout the parts and create code for the machine?
• With static nesting – and probably the basis for its creation – the static nests can be reused over and over again with little or no time expense.  The big time expense is in the – frequently manual – first creation of the nest, and any modification made to it thereafter in responding to change (see point #3 above).
• With dynamic nesting, the process is automatic.  The nests can be created in seconds or minutes and still reflect current demand, order cohesion, and material efficiency.  The user isn’t tied to creating each nest separately.  He can create a batch of nests for a production run, a shift, etc. or can have the machine operator call down one nest at a time (JIT), which reflects current demand.  Again, each nest may have a completely unique selection and orientation of parts and part quantities.
5. Part Orientation & Quantity – This speaks to the granular nature of the layout of each nest  – how many parts, how many different parts, what quantity of each, what’s the orientation of each part, etc.
• Static nesting means the parts are rigid or set in their layout.  Per nest the quantity, variety, and orientation are set.  They will not vary from run to run of that particular nest.  If there are grain constrained parts to be considered, they are locked in place when the nest is built.  If there is a large quantity of one part needed, it may be the only part on that nest.
• Dynamic nests are created uniquely.  Unless the volume of parts merits several sheets be made with the same nest, the nest pattern isn’t repeated.  This opens up the opportunity to change the quantity and orientation of each part on each nest to optimize material efficiency, to retain order or kit cohesion or to meet other demands.
6. Automation – This is about how much human interaction necessary to complete the task of nesting.
• Static is well suited for a human or manual creation process.  If the nest is considered as a puzzle, it is pretty straight forward to lay out five or fifty of the same part on a sheet.  Even if a few parts are introduced into the mix it can still be manageable.  It takes time, but it is doable.
• Because dynamic nesting can take into account a much, much larger bucket of parts, look at individual due dates and priorities, evaluate material efficiency needs, consider a full 360° rotation for each part, honor and respect grain constraints on each part, and manage tooling and / or tabbing, it is well beyond the capabilities of most human or manual interaction.  The need for nesting automation is essential to juggle all of these needs in a timely fashion with optimal results.

In Conclusion….

So there you have it, a contrast between the nature and process of static and dynamic nesting and their relative applications.  We often find that static nesting is a method born of necessity to cut the programming time and still have a respectable material yield.  It is only when inventory spirals out of control, or scrap is too high, or changes comes too fast that this work-around becomes unfeasible.  Enter automation with dynamic nesting software.

How about you?

What is your nesting strategy?  Do you use static or dynamic nesting or a combination?  What led you to this choice?

If there is an interest in automation through dynamic nesting, contact Optimation.  We can help think through the process and the possibilities with you.

10 Ways to Cut Material Waste with Nesting Software

Nothing cuts into cash flow or is a profit drain like wasted raw material.  And nothing is more frustrating than seeing huge piles of scrap go out the door.  It is these real, tangible costs that, with some foresight and creative thinking, can be turned into rewards.

Here are a few tips to start you down the road toward material savings.

1. KNOW YOUR MATERIAL USE RATE

It is surprising in this age of technology how many manufacturers don’t know their material use rate. They cannot easily answer the question, “How much of each sheet of material is used for parts?” or “What percentage of your raw material is scrap?” In some cases they need to grab a pencil and paper and do some quick estimates.  And that’s fine if that’s where you are.  At least it is a start. The best place to start when reigning in your material waste is getting a handle on what kind of scrap rate you currently have. When calculating, be sure to look at a large enough production sample to extrapolate use over six months or a year to get a truer picture of reality.  Remember you can’t change what you can’t measure…at least when it comes to material waste.

2. DETERMINE A MATERIAL USE GOAL

What would be a reasonable goal to achieve? If you are currently getting 70% actual efficiency, is it possible to get 75%? What is a reasonable expectation for the processes – punch, laser, plasma – you are running? What would a 5% increase in material savings translate in to cost savings?

3. IDENTIFY SAVINGS CONSTRAINTS

What things hold you back from gaining more savings?  Do you have really large parts that don’t lend themselves easily to nesting?  Are you working with a grained material that impedes rotation on a nest?  Is there a limit to the amount of time you can spend (manually) nesting to achieve higher efficiencies?  Do hot parts and rush orders mess up your efficiencies?  Are you shearing blanks? Make a list.

4. IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAVINGS

Now look for ways to reduce raw material costs. Have you evaluated all of the opportunities? Could savings be achieved with a smaller inventory on hand and ordering as needed (just in time)? Is it possible to purchase fewer sheet sizes in greater quantities and get a better price on standard sheet sizes? Is it possible to get better use out of your more costly materials? Would there be savings opportunities if your production time window was opened to include more future orders? Could nesting automation improve your efficiency?

5. MAKE USE OF THE TRIM STRIP

The trim strip on any piece of sheet metal is a golden  opportunity to improve material usage. By placing additional parts in what could be a 3-4” strip the length of the sheet or nesting beneath the clamps, you can increase your material usage significantly. Be certain to make accommodations for the clamps and any repositioning necessary.

6. NESTING PARTS IN HOLES

Any part with a void or “hole” is an invitation to increase efficiency. Take every chance to place suitable parts in the holes. Doing so can make excellent use of scrap material and realistically take your actual efficiency for the sheet over 100%.  Look for opportunities to mirror parts or create 180° pairs to increase the compactness of the part and fit additional parts in the holes.

7. COMMON EDGE CUTTING

By placing parts with similar straight edges together in a laser cutting environment you can save not only material but cycle time with common edge cutting. The reduction in material between parts can save as much as 15% on a sheet of material. Be certain to program the part path to avoid freed parts and potential head crashes.

8. COMMON EDGE PUNCHING

In the same manner as with laser cutting, parts with similar straight edges or like radiuses can be punched simultaneously saving material and tool wear. By programming the same tool, i.e. a 4-way radius or rectangular tool, to strike two part edges with one hit, the material that would otherwise be between the two parts is eliminated. Common Edge Punching

9. FILLER PARTS

Filler Parts take advantage of non-priority parts to make excellent use of sheet material and reduce waste. There are many strategies to make effective use of filler parts, but here are a couple.

Alternate materials – when creating a nest on a high grade material, i.e. brushed stainless, take advantage of parts that would otherwise be created on a lower grade material to fill in the balance of the nest or sheet. The result is less of the higher grade material is wasted.

Stock Inventory/KANBAN – If you regularly produce stock inventory of small parts, such as brackets, introduce them into your nesting process. The inventoried parts can be nested amongst the active orders to reduce waste. The key to this process is keeping track of your inventory part levels and knowing what quantities to produce when.  Nesting software can aid with that.

Future Orders - In a perfect world each sheet of material has 100% or greater efficiency using only the most urgent parts due today. But that isn’t always possible. However, material waste can be significantly reduced by looking forward in time at the orders due tomorrow, next week, next month and bringing those part orders into the current sheet layout. You are not only meeting deadlines on those parts in advance of their due dates, but you’re increasing material efficiency.

10. REMNANT MANAGEMENT & NESTING

A remnant is a large segment of sheet material left over after parts have been cut from the sheet. This can easily account for significant waste if not handled effectively. Ideally,  each remnant should be saved and identified as a unique material (type & size).

Then as the next opportunity for creating a nest on that material arises, the remnant is given primary consideration for use. The faster the remnant is consumed, the less chance there is of sheet damage or loss.

BONUS POINT

11. BATCH NESTING

It goes without saying that the greater the part selection in a dynamic nesting environment the more opportunities a programmer or nesting software will have to find optimal part combinations and thus increase material efficiency.  That’s exactly the concept behind batch nesting.  Throw a bunch – a batch – of your most urgent parts in an “order bucket” and nest.  Make lots of nests.  And they will inevitably have a higher efficiency than creating a nest with a smaller dynamic part selection.  Don’t want to be locked into running a series of nests in case something happens and you need to change something?  Run the batch. Toss (delete) any nests that haven’t run on the machine.  Make the change.  Batch nest again.

How about you?

What are your approaches to getting the most from each sheet of material?  What’s working?  What isn’t?  Share your ideas.

If you’d like to talk more about any of the ideas above and how they may work in your shop, contact us.