Each part clamped individually
The parts were clamped one at a time in a vise. After each part the machine stood still until it was re-clamped and touched off. Setup time and operator effort exceeded the actual machining time. [Add specific starting point]
More parts per setup
As many parts as possible in one setup, longer unattended running and one program that machines all parts reliably one after another. Without expensive hydraulic workholding.
Four sides, three clamps each.
From clamp design to program.
-
01
Fixturing concept
Layout on four tower sides with three parts each. Clamping faces, access for tool and wrench and interfering contours are defined first.
-
02
Clamp design
Manual clamps with fixed and movable jaws in CAD, matched to the stock and the tower grid. Jaws designed so the part locates repeatably.
-
03
CAM program
All 12 parts in one hyperMILL program. Side changes via the rotary axis, part-by-part machining with an optimised tool sequence.
-
04
Simulation & prove-out
Machine simulation with tower, clamps and tool holders. Collisions are resolved on screen before the program goes to the machine.
Do the maths: does a tombstone pay off?
Enter your own values. Every field can be changed, results update instantly.
| SingleMachine waits while clamping | TombstoneMachine waits while reloading | Pallet changer2nd tower is loaded while the 1st one runs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time per part | |||
| vs. single | – | ||
| Machine idle per part | |||
| Machine runs unattended in one block | |||
| Parts per shift |
Tool change time per part: . Assumptions: on the tombstone each tool is changed in only once for all parts (same machining per part). Indexing the tower between sides is included in the machining time. Guide values, no guarantee.
Similar parts, too much setup time?
Send me the part and machine. I will check whether a tombstone or multi-part fixturing pays off.