Custom tooling and die design
How press brake, folder and punching tools are read, rated and chosen, the limits tool makers publish and AFS's own envelope, a step-by-step method for deciding when a special tool is needed, and how to trace a defect back to its tool.
4 lessons · about 45 min · 9 diagrams · 11 videos
Version 1.0.0
Builds on these modules
Lessons
0 of 4 complete
Lesson 1 · 12 min · 12 slides · 9 questions
Custom tooling and die design: principles and terminology
What tooling means on a press brake, a folder and a punch; the parts of a tool set and its rating; standard, special and custom tools; and the lockout, guarding and lifting rules for tool changes.
You will be able to: Name the parts of press brake, folder and punching tools, tell standard, special and custom tools apart, say how AFS forms its profiles, and state the safety rules that cover tool changes.
Not startedStart →Lesson 2 · 12 min · 12 slides · 8 questions
Custom tooling and die design: materials, standards and design constraints
Tool steel and hardness, load ratings per length and the factors that raise force, the geometry rules tool makers publish, protecting prefinished faces, punching clearance and force, and AFS's envelope.
You will be able to: Identify what tools are made of and who sets their hardness, read a tool rating per length, and apply the published V-opening, leg, radius, angle, offset, hem, surface and punching limits, alongside AFS's own fabrication envelope.
Not startedStart →Lesson 3 · 11 min · 12 slides · 7 questions
Custom tooling and die design: methods and worked application
A documented decision method from the FlashDraft profile to a special-tool specification and first-article test, with five worked checks using the tool makers' published formulas and AFS's own limits.
You will be able to: Apply an eight-step method to decide whether a part needs a special tool, with worked load, radius, offset, punching and AFS envelope checks, recording every input, unit and assumption.
Not startedStart →Lesson 4 · 10 min · 12 slides · 7 questions
Custom tooling and die design: defects, verification and case study
Reading marks, creases, multi-breakage, collisions, overloads, galling and punched-hole faults back to their tool causes, three case studies, and the first-article checks and records that prove the fix.
You will be able to: Diagnose a tooling defect from what it leaves on the part or the tool, choose a corrective option the tool makers publish, and document the evidence for review.
Not startedStart →
Practical task
Prepare a tooling job packet for one profile: the FlashDraft A Style Box Gutter 5 in, and a customer variant of it with one inner leg drawn at 0.5 in. Decide, for each, whether it is formed inside the shop envelope, needs a redesign, or would need a special tool on a press brake, and show your working.
Hand in
- A decision rationale for each version, following the eight steps, naming the source of every rule used (AFS register, tool maker or standard)
- A marked-up sketch of each profile with every leg dimensioned and any leg below a minimum flagged
- Measurements and assumptions: thickness from the AFS material register, units for every number, and any assumed value (such as material factor 1.0) labelled as assumed
- One worked load check per length, comparing the needed force with a stated rating (WILA's example of 1,000 kN/m may be used, named as an example), including the hemming factor where hems are formed on a press brake
- A completed tool and first-part checklist, and a defect analysis of one planted fault (a marked prefinished face or a blocked profile): what was seen, the cause and its source, the fix and the check that proved it
Rubric
| Criterion | Meets the standard when |
|---|---|
| Sources | Every value names its owner: an AFS register, a tool or machine maker, OSHA or a standard. No maker value is presented as AFS practice. |
| Envelope first | The AFS limits are checked before any tooling is considered; the short-leg variant is sent back for redesign with the customer, not tooled around. |
| Load check | The force per length is worked with units and the stated formula, factors are applied correctly, and the result is compared with a named rating. No real holder or machine limit is given in this module, so any holder or machine figure used is labelled as assumed. |
| Assumptions | Every assumption is written down and labelled; no number is invented. |
| Defect analysis | The fault is described, measured, traced to a published cause, corrected and re-checked, with photographs. |
| Safety | The packet states that tool changes are servicing under 29 CFR 1910.147 and how energy is controlled, and plans any heavy tool lift. |