The company, where I work, brought in a cn amada bending machine, because the machine park was aging. (by the way, I still wonder how we could release good songs with the raves we had)
This machine now gives us the press, and the guy who trained us gave us a sheet where we find the delta l to be applied according to the ve, the thickness, and the bending radius, to be subtracted or added to have our sheet metal development, according to the bending angle.
Problem: when we look for the press with this sheet, we have a deviation from the press given by the machine (we take the same weight, thickness of the workpiece, internal radius, ..... that goes without saying).
Example: with 2 90° bends on a 2 mm sheet, you end up with 0.75 mm less difference compared to the machine press.
on 4 ply it's almost 3.5 mm difference
Does anyone have a formula or something (like folding table, loss table at the fold,........) Or provide us with feedback on the type of Amada folding machine
by the way, the sheet would interest me =) If you could send it to me.
Personally, I use the K factor that I often set to 0.33.
Example:
Sheet metal in 15/10 or 20/10
V of 16
Folding radius 2.6 or 2.7 depending on the manufacturer.
K-factor at 0.33 (or 0.5 when it's a crushed fold)
But on the other hand, I have more problems with thicknesses above 5mm
In general at the workshop up to 40/10th, he finds 1mm difference.
I would say that you have to do some tests between SW and your machine to make a good folding table that will allow you to always be as close as possible to your machine.
It is also important to know that bending also depends on the material and the direction of rolling. The human aspect is also taken into account.
In short, when you start folding with Solidworks, you have to try, try, try, then try again =)
Indeed, as @Bart says, there are many criteria that come into play. As a result, the difference between theory and practice is quite scary (the user, the temperature, the storage conditions, the wear and tear of your tools, etc etc)
So, you can try to get as close to it as possible, but I think that functional games remain a basic rule ... and to only grade the lengths which you think is important on the part
I think there's a little day to spend with the machine to see what happens in real life. Take sheets of different thicknesses in order to make your own chart (of course depending on the material). In my opinion, the best would be to take a 90° angle to make an abacus. And to make a ratio of proportion for the other angles (like 135° take a 1/2 ratio of the K of the angle to 90°). And the thicker you go, the greater the K factor will be. In the end, you will have an abacus similar to the drilling abacus (speed depending on the material and the Ø to be drilled)
I'm going to try to see with Amada if it's possible to have the method of calculating the CN, and by making comparisons between dev theo and real results to come up with an abacus that can get close to the truth
@Bart, I'll put the sheet on you (but you should already have it)
