sheet metal Flat Pattern bounding box, how to add offset?

[Jaylin_Hochstetler]

All valid and correct assessments Alex. The methods of estimating material are established and not up for debate right now. The other department takes the overall dimensions of the flat from our print, puts them in a spreadsheet >>> and it tells them material usage (it’s a calculator of (width + C)(length + C)(lbs per sq in of material)) There is a wide range of aspect ratios to our parts so the correction factor is not a simple % overrun, but I could still approximate. The precision does add up considering LYTD usage of 14 ga steel was over 600klbs, 11ga was 1.1mlbs, 7ga was ~1.7mlbs. Problem is the nesting software does a better job on parts that have an ‘L’ shape for example, the actual usage is less than the bounding box without the addendum. The method used to estimate material usage is a bit frustrating for me.
You’re also correct on the nesting software but that is on the computer in the work center for the operator to nest orders, they are not doing the estimating/data entry.

Variables and properties and config properties and cutlist properties at all a bit confusing to me, overly complicated and sometimes cryptic naming. Also a bit frustrating that some are exposed as text even though they are numeric. Anyway I didn’t know it would be so difficult to get SW to put a material usage with skeleton included on the print if the part has a flat pattern in the model.

Just curious, how would you have done this in Solid Edge?

[AlexLachance]

All valid and correct assessments Alex. The methods of estimating material are established and not up for debate right now. The other department takes the overall dimensions of the flat from our print, puts them in a spreadsheet >>> and it tells them material usage (it’s a calculator of (width + C)(length + C)(lbs per sq in of material)) There is a wide range of aspect ratios to our parts so the correction factor is not a simple % overrun, but I could still approximate. The precision does add up considering LYTD usage of 14 ga steel was over 600klbs, 11ga was 1.1mlbs, 7ga was ~1.7mlbs. Problem is the nesting software does a better job on parts that have an ‘L’ shape for example, the actual usage is less than the bounding box without the addendum. The method used to estimate material usage is a bit frustrating for me.
You’re also correct on the nesting software but that is on the computer in the work center for the operator to nest orders, they are not doing the estimating/data entry.

Variables and properties and config properties and cutlist properties at all a bit confusing to me, overly complicated and sometimes cryptic naming. Also a bit frustrating that some are exposed as text even though they are numeric. Anyway I didn’t know it would be so difficult to get SW to put a material usage with skeleton included on the print if the part has a flat pattern in the model.

My understanding is your ERP is receiving the wrong area to consume from SolidWorks, because your nesting consumes more then the area that SolidWorks sends, it then throws off your ERP for estimations. You’ve also mentionned that there’s an issue lying in the fact that the nesting Software does a better job on certain parts then others. Is there something that can be done on the nesting software to adress this, or is this something that everyone everywhere faces and adresses in their own manner?

So, let’s try and schematize this whole thing together.

Area of nesting = Comes from Technical Department.
Nesting = Done by nesting department.
Estimation/data entry = Done by estimation department.


If there isn’t anything that can be done to adress this from the nesting Software, then that is when ultimately you would be the one having to come up with the solution. Can you identify when, or what causes the nesting software issues in it’s estimation and when it doesn’t? That will help determining the proper way to go from there.