Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
Stamping Strip Layout for
Optimal Raw Material Utilization
T.J. Nye, Mechanical Engineering Dept., McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
E-mail: nyet@mcmaster.ca
Abstract
Stamping dies are used to produce very large numbers of
identical parts from sheet metal. Due to the high volumes of
parts produced, even small inefficiencies in material utiliza-
tion per part can lead to very large amounts of wasted mate-
rial over a dies life. This paper develops an exact algorithm
for orienting the part on the strip to maximize material uti-
lization. The algorithm optimally nests convex or nonconvex
blanks on a strip and predicts both the orientation and strip
width that minimize material usage. Technological con-
straints, such as blank orientation constraints due to planar
anisotropy, are also incorporated into the algorithm. The
algorithms use is demonstrated with examples that show
how sensitive material utilization can be to small changes in
blank orientation in the die.
Keywords: Stamping, Die Design, Optimization, Material
Utilization, Minkowski Sum, Design Tools
Introduction
During the design process for stamping dies,
decisions must be made about the orientation of the
stamped part on the strip. The orientation deter-
mines how efficiently raw material is utilized, and in
an operation such as stamping where large amounts
of material are processed, small inefficiencies per
piece can accumulate into huge wastes of material in
the long term.
Maximizing material utilization in stamping is
of paramount importance. Raw materials typically
represent 75% or more of total costs in stamping
facilities,1 so a poorly designed die can significant-
ly increase a companys operating costs over its
life. For example, in a blanking press running at
200 strokes per minute, a die will save one ton of
material in each eight-hour shift if its design is
adjusted to save just 10 grams per part. Once tool-
ing is built, the amount of material waste per part
is fixed for the (usually long) life of the tools.
Thus, it is very important to design tooling from
the start to minimize waste.
239
2000
Substantial life cycle savings result by selecting
optimal blank orientation when the tooling is
designed. This task, however, is quite challenging to
perform manually because, as the blank orientation
changes, both the width and the pitch (that is, the dis-
tance between adjacent blanks) of the blank on the
strip change. The measure of interest is the utilization
of the strip material, which is a function of the area
of strip material used per blank. Selecting the orien-
tation that minimizes pitch does not necessarily max-
imize material utilization, and manually evaluating
area when both the pitch and width change is diffi-
cult. The computational needs of this problem are
well suited to the capabilities of CAD systems, pro-
vided an algorithm such as the one described here is
available. Applications of this algorithm are in com-
puter-aided design of stamping dies and in expert
systems for automated tooling generation, such as
the systems demonstrated in recent years by Cheok
and Nee,2 Cheok, Foong, and Nee,3 Choi et al.,4
Huang, Ismail, and Hon,5 Ismail, Chen, and Hon,6
Lin and Hsu,7 Lu, Weidong, and Lihua,8 Prasad and
Somasundaram,9 and Singh and Sekhon.10
This paper is concerned with the problem of ori-
enting a single, arbitrary blank on a strip so that raw
material is optimally utilized. The blank is represent-
ed as a simple polygon, that is, as an irregular poly-
gon that may or may not be convex, but has no holes.
(Holes in a stamping are ignored for blank layout.)
Blanks with curved edges are approximated as poly-
gons, with the approximation improving as the num-
ber of vertices on the polygon increases. It is
assumed that the width of the strip is determined dur-
ing the layout optimization rather than being pre-
specified before the layout work starts. The cost of
the raw material is assumed to be a fixed value per
unit weight (or unit area) regardless of the width cho-
sen for the strip; that is, there are no penalties for
selecting widths that are not stock or preferred
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000
widths. In the remaining discussion, bridge width,
wB, the extra amount of material around the blank
that forms the skeleton, is accommodated by grow-
ing the blank by one half the bridge width before
optimization starts. Optionally, an additional edge
width, wE, can be added to the skeleton, as shown in
Figure 1. Naturally, blanks are not allowed to over-
lap, and strip width, wS, is set equal to the minimum
width necessary for the blank at a given orientation.
Given these assumptions, this paper describes a
new, exact algorithm for finding optimal blank lay-
out on a strip. Previous work on this problem is sur-
veyed in the next section, followed by an introduc-
tion to the Minkowski sum, a concept from the com-
putational geometry field that is especially useful in
determining whether adjacent polygons overlap. The
Minkowski sum is then incorporated into an algo-
rithm that optimizes material utilization, and an
example is used to demonstrate the use of the algo-
rithm. Finally, a discussion of conclusions is given.
Previous Work
The earliest approach to this problem seems to be
due to Adamowitz and Albano.11 They proposed pack-
ing a blank into a rectangular box of minimum area
that is then repeated along a strip. The orientation of
the blank in the minimum area box is used as the opti-
mal orientation when designing the blanking die.
Nee12 and Martin and Stephenson13 have also used
this approach. In general, however, this approach does
not lead to optimal layouts. For example, consider a
parallelogram-shaped blank. A parallelogram will
nest along a strip with zero waste, but an enclosing
rectangle will add waste material at each end of the
blank. Thus, using the enclosing rectangle can pre-
clude an optimal layout from being achieved.
Enclosing the blank within other packing shapes
has also been examined. Chow14 packed blanks into
known interlocking shapes that were then repeated
along the strip. Qu and Sanders15 packed blanks into
composites of nonoverlapping rectangles. Dori and
Ben Bassat16 and Karoupi and Loftus17 packed
blanks into convex polygons. Just as with packing
blanks into rectangles, these approaches build waste
material into the layout that may prohibit finding the
optimal layout for a specific shape.
Meta-heuristics have also been applied to the blank
layout problem. Simulated annealing has been used
by Jain, Feynes, and Richter18 and Theodoracates and
240
wS wB
p
wE
Figure 1
Adding Bridge Width to Blanks
Grimsley.19 Ismail and Hon20 have successfully used
genetic algorithms for such a layout problem. These
methods perform well relative to other methods when
a number of different parts need to be nested togeth-
er, as the complexity of such problems increases com-
binatorially. Unfortunately, when determining the lay-
out for a single blank on a strip, they suffer from the
disadvantages of not being guaranteed to find the
optimum orientation, and they may require signifi-
cant computational times.
Incremental rotation algorithms have been pro-
posed by Chow,14 Nee,21 Prasad, Somasundaram, and
Rao,22 and Lin and Hsu.7 In these, the blank is rotat-
ed by a fixed increment, then the strip width and
pitch are determined at that orientation. After rotat-
ing the blank through many increments, the orienta-
tion that provided the best material utilization is
chosen. These algorithms, as proposed, are not exact
in that they only examine utilization at fixed incre-
ments such as one (such as Prasad, Somasundaram,
and Rao) or two (such as Nee12) degrees. The opti-
mum orientation will usually fall between incre-
ments, and because even small inefficiencies per
blank can accumulate into significant wastes of raw
material over the life of a die, there is value in
improving on this approach. The automated die
design systems mentioned previously,2-10 when
described, all utilize incremental rotation algorithms
in their blank layout modules.
An exact blank layout algorithm has been
described by Joshi and Sudit.23 They started by pro-
viding a proof that the optimal layout of blanks placed
on a strip of finite length will converge to the optimal
layout on blanks of a strip of infinite length as the
finite strip becomes relatively long, as is common for

the raw material in metal stamping. To ensure a
nonoverlapping constraint between adjacent blanks
was satisfied for any blank orientation, the concept of
the obstacle space was employed. The obstacle
space, which is closely related to no-fit polygons
and the Minkowski sum, is a geometric construction
in which one polygon is grown by the shape of
another polygon. If the second polygon is translated
such that its reference point falls on the perimeter of
this obstacle space, it will touch but not overlap the
first polygon. By using the obstacle space to define
the feasible set of relative translations, Joshi and Sudit
showed that when the width of the strip is greater than
that required by the blank in any orientation, the opti-
mal orientation is that which minimizes the pitch
between blanks, that is, the orientation that gives the
smallest distance from the center of the obstacle
space to a point on its perimeter. Joshi and Sudit then
adapted this method to provide optimal blank orienta-
tions for the case where the width of the strip is pre-
determined and may be less than the blank requires
for particular orientations. In stamping, predeter-
mined strip width is usually not the case, however.
Die design normally proceeds without restriction on
strip width, and once the design is finalized, the min-
imum necessary strip width is determined and speci-
fied for material purchase.
The following discussion introduces a new exact
algorithm, one that is capable of determining jointly
optimal orientations and strip widths through the use
of the Minkowski sum, a concept similar to the
obstacle space used by Joshi and Sudit.23
y
A B
A
b
+
a
a
B (B)
b
Figure 2
Minkowski Sum of Two Polygons
241
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000
The Minkowski Sum
The Minkowski sum is a concept found in the
computational geometry field24 that finds application
in areas such as robotic motion planning (such as
Canny25) and optimization of cutting patterns in gar-
ment production (for example, Li and Milenkovic26).
The power of the Minkowski sum is that its use sim-
plifies a polygon-polygon overlap query into a point-
in-polygon query, significantly reducing computa-
tional effort. When applied to the blank layout on a
strip problem, it also greatly simplifies pitch and
width calculations, as will be shown.
The Minkowski sum for two polygons, A and B, is
defined as follows:
A B = {a + b | a A, b B} (1)
This is shown graphically in Figure 2. For detecting
overlaps between polygons, say A and B, the
Minkowski sum A (B) is used, where (B) is
polygon B rotated 180 around the origin. If A
(B) contains the origin, A and B overlap,27 as shown
in Figure 3. The Minkowski sums shape is invariant
for a given A and B but translates as A or B translate.
For blank layout, the same blank is repeated on the
strip, so the relevant Minkowski sum is A (A).
For example, the Minkowski sum for a parallelo-
gram-shaped blank is shown in Figure 4. Regardless
of the coordinate system origin used for defining the
vertices of A, A (A) is centered at the origin. If
two blanks are considered, A1 and A2, they will over-
lap if A1 (A2) contains the origin. To eliminate
y
A
B
(B)
A
x
Figure 3
Overlap Detection with Minkowski Sums
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000

Width A A A
A

Sweepline
(A)
A

Pitch

A (A)
A

A Sweepline
Figure 4
Minkowski Sum for a Parallelogram-Shaped Blank
A
overlaps, the blanks need to be translated relative to
each other. This relative translation causes a similar
A (A)

translation of the Minkowski sum, and when the Width
Pitch
Minkowski sum no longer contains the origin, the
blank overlap is eliminated.
This property leads to the observation that the
distance from the origin to the perimeter of A Sweepline

(A) in any given direction is the spacing, or pitch,

between blanks on a strip oriented in that direction.
Thus, for a given blank, finding blank pitch for any
strip orientation is simply a matter of finding the
distance to the edge of the Minkowski sum. This is
shown in Figure 5, where the strip orientation is
described by a sweepline vector, that is, a vector
anchored at the origin that sweeps through a range
of orientations.
Similarly, the strip width for any blank orienta-
tion is just the maximum perpendicular distance
between the strip longitudinal axis (through the ori-
gin) and the perimeter of A (A). This is shown
in Figure 5 by the dashed lines parallel to the
sweepline vector. With these two observations,
material utilization can be easily calculated as a
function of blank orientation once the Minkowski
sum is generated.
Utilization Optimization
The raw material utilization, , is defined as follows:
AB AB
= = (2)
AS p wS
where AB is the blank area, AS is the strip area, is
the strip pitch, and wS is the strip width. For a poly-
gon, blank area is given by the following:24
A
A
Pitch A
A (A)
Width
Figure 5
Use of Minkowski Sum in Finding Strip Pitch and Width
( xi yi +1 yi xi +1 )
1 n
AB = (3)
2 i =1
where (xi, yi) are the coordinates of vertex i on the
polygonal blank. (The n vertices are assumed num-
bered consecutively in CCW order around the blank,
with a modulus-n numbering system.)
To calculate strip pitch and strip width, an angu-
lar sweepline is used within the Minkowski sum A
(A). The sweepline is anchored at the origin and
traverses through a total rotation of 180 (a rotation
of 360 is not necessary due to symmetry). In phys-
ical terms, the sweepline can be thought of as the
longitudinal axis of the strip. Rotating the
sweepline and strip in the CCW direction through

242
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000

an angle of is equivalent to rotating the blank in

the CW direction through an angle of on a sta-
4 3
tionary strip. vF, vT

The pitch (distance from the origin to the

Minkowski sum edge) varies smoothly as the
sweepline traverses an edge of the Minkowski sum,
but changes abruptly as the sweepline crosses a A
(A)
vertex to the next edge. These points where the
1 2 vS
sweepline passes vertices are termed event points.
A given edge traversed by the sweepline is defined
by the start vertex, vS, and the finish vertex, vF,
with vS being located CW of vF. As the sweepline
crosses the event point (that is, when the sweepline
vT 4
reaches vF and an angle of tan 1(yF/xF)), these ver-
3 vF

tices each increment to the next vertex on A

(A). This process is shown in Figure 6. The
sweepline starts at vertex 2 (top figure), giving vS =
2 and vF = 3. As the sweepline rotates CCW, it tra-
verses edge 2-3. Once vertex 3 is reached (bottom
vS
figure), the sweepline passes on to edge 3-4, incre- 1 2

menting the start and finish vertices to vS = 3 and

vF = 4, respectively. Between the event points, strip
pitch, , is calculated as the distance from the ori-
gin to the intersection point of the sweepline and
4 3
Minkowski sum (see the Appendix for the deriva- vF, vT
vS
tion), that is,

p=
( x F yS x S y F )
( yS yF )cos() + ( x F xS )sin() (4)

1 2

Strip width is the maximum perpendicular distance

Figure 6
between the sweepline and the points on the Shifting of Event Vertices as Sweepline Rotates
Minkowski sum. This distance will always coincide
with a vertex on the Minkowski sum, termed the top wS = xT sin() + yT cos() + 2wE (5)
vertex, vT. For example, in Figure 6 the maximum
perpendicular distance from the sweepline is shown The quantity 2wE is included to add edge width to
by the dotted lines. The top vertex starts at vertex 3, the strip (Figure 1). Strip area becomes:
then moves to vertex 4 as the sweepline becomes par-
allel to edge 3-4. As the sweepline rotates, the top ver-
AS =
( x F yS xS yF )( xT sin() + yT cos() + 2wE )
tex progresses around the Minkowski sum, and the
complete set of top vertices forms the convex hull of
( yS yF )cos() + ( x F xS )sin() (6)

the Minkowski sum. (This can be seen in Figure 8.)

This shifting of top vertices from one vertex to the
next also triggers event points. These event points
occur when the sweepline becomes parallel to the
edge of the convex hull vTvT+1, that is, at the angle
tan 1((yT+1 yT)/(xT+1 xT)). For a given top vertex, the
strip width is then found as follows:
Material utilization can be expressed as a function of
sweepline orientation through the use of Eqs. (2) to (5):
AB
=
( x F yS xS yF )( xT sin() + yT cos() + 2wE ) (7)
( yS yF )cos() + ( x F xS )sin()

243
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000
Taking the first derivative and simplifying gives the
following:
d for vS and vF.
= (8)
d
( x F xS ) yT ( yS yF ) xT + 2wE (( x F xS )cos() ( yS yF )sin())
AB
( x F yS xS yF )( xT sin() + yT cos() + 2wE )2
The behavior of can be considered for two
cases. First, if no additional edge width is added to
the strip, wE = 0 and the third term in the numerator
of Eq. (8) vanishes. The rest of the numerator is
invariant to changes in , as is the first term in the
denominator. The second term in the denominator is
a function of , but because it is squared, its sign will
always be positive. Thus, the sign of Eq. (8) is invari-
ant with changes in , so utilization will either
monotonically increase, monotonically decrease, or
remain constant as the sweepline passes along the
edge vSvF. This implies that optima must occur at the
rotation constraints, that is, the event points. The
global optimum is then found by simply evaluating
the utilization at each event point where the
sweepline reaches a vertex on the Minkowski sum
and selecting the event point orientation that pro-
vides the best utilization.
In the second case, where wE is not zero, setting
Eq. (8) to zero and solving for * gives the following:
( x F x S ) f + ( x F x S ) yS yT + xT (2 yS yF yS2 ) + x S yT yF
* = tan 1
( yS yF ) f yT ( x F x S ) + xT ( x F x S )( yS yF )
2
where:
( 2 2
)
f = 4 wE2 ( x F x S ) + ( yS yF ) (( x F x S ) yT + ( yS yF ) xT )
Thus, it may be possible for a local maximal point to
occur at a sweepline angle between vS and vF. In this
case where wE is not zero, * must be evaluated for
each edge of the Minkowski sum. On a particular
edge, if * falls between vS and vF, a new event point
is created at * and its utilization evaluated.
The optimization algorithm is then constructed as
follows:
Step 1: Calculate the Minkowski sum A (A) of
the polygonal blank A.
Step 2: Find the angles between the origin and the
vertices on the Minkowski sum so that a range of
180 is spanned. These angles are the event points
Step 3: If wE 0, for each pair vS and vF, calculate
*. If * falls between vS and vF, include an event
point for *.
Step 4: Calculate the convex hull of the vertices on
the Minkowski sum.
Step 5: Find the angles of the edges of the convex
hull. These angles are the event points for vT.
Step 6: Add event points at the limits of technologi-
cally feasible orientations. Delete any event points
that are technologically infeasible.
Step 7: Calculate strip utilization at each event
point. Select the orientation(s) with the highest uti-
lization as the optimal orientation(s).
Algorithms for the calculation of the Minkowski
sum (step 1) and convex hull (step 4) can be found
in computational geometry texts, such as
ORourke24 or de Berg et al.27 Technological con-
straints on blank orientation, such as due to planar
anisotropy, are dealt with simply in this algorithm.
New event points are added to the problem at the
(9) limits of technologically acceptable rotations. Any
existing event points at nontechnologically feasible
rotations are then deleted. All remaining event
points are technologically feasible, so only a feasible
orientation will be chosen as optimal.
2
Examples
Figure 7 shows a T-shaped blank surrounded by
its associated Minkowski sum. The convex hull of
the Minkowski sum is also shown with dotted lines.
The sweepline is assumed to start at v4 and travel
CCW until it reaches v10, for a total range of rotation
of 180. This process is shown for each event point
in Figure 8, read right to left, top to bottom. Each
drawing in Figure 8 shows the sweepline at an event
point, either for shifts in vS and vF vertices or for
shifts in vT vertices. The angle of each event point
was calculated, along with the relevant pitch [Eq.
(4)], strip width [Eq. (5)], and utilization [Eq. (7)],
and summarized in Table 1. (No technological con-
244
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000

(6, 8) (6, 8)
v8 (4, 8) v7

(0, 6) (2, 6)

(4, 6) (6, 6)

(10, 2) (10, 2)
v10 v5
(6, 2) v9 v6 (6, 2)

(0, 0) (2, 0)
(6, 2) v12 v3 (6, 2)
v11 v4
(10, 2) (10, 2)

v1 v2
(6, 8) (6, 8)

Figure 7
Example Blank (Heavy Line), Its Minkowski Sum (Solid Line),
and the Convex Hull (Dotted Line)

Table 1
Event Points for T-Shaped Blank Example

Event Angle
Point () Event Pitch Width Utilization
1 -11.31 vS 4, vF 5, 10.198 9.022 34.8%
vT 7
2 0.00 vT 8 10 8 40.0%
3 11.31 vS 5, vF 6 10.198 9.022 34.8%
4 18.43 vS 6, vF 7 6.324 9.486 53.3%
5 53.13 vS 7, vF 8 10 9.600 33.3%
6 56.31 vT 10 9.614 9.430 35.3%
7 90.00 vT 11 8 10 40.0%
8 123.69 vT 1 9.614 9.430 35.3%
9 126.87 vS 8, vF 9 10 9.600 33.3%
10 161.56 vS 9, vF 10 6.324 9.486 53.3%
11 168.69 vS 10, vF 11 10.198 9.022 34.8%

straints have been included in this example and wE =

0.) Inspection shows the optimal blank orientation
occurs at = 18.43 and = 161.56, with a corre-
sponding material utilization of 53.3%. Figure 8
Sweepline Event Points. The Dotted Line Shows the Maximum
The value of optimal blank layout can also be Perpendicular Distance from the Sweepline (Heavy Arrow)
demonstrated using this example. Suppose the to the Edge of the Minkowski Sum.
dimensions of the part are in centimeters and the
part is to be made from 3 mm thick steel. Suppose oriented at 18. The optimal algorithm developed
also that the part is produced on a 200 stroke-per- here would select an orientation of 18.43. The dif-
minute blanking press an average of 10 hours per ference, less than one half degree, if ignored would
week. If a conventional incremental rotation algo- lead to more than 18 tons of additional strip materi-
rithm was used to design the strip layout, with a one- al wasted per year. Over its life, the value of this
or two-degree increment angle, the blank would be extra waste could well exceed the cost of the blank-

245
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000

55.0%

50.0%
Material utilization (percent)

45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%
20 30 80 130 180
Sweepline angle (degrees)

Figure 9 Figure 10
Material Utilization as a Function of Sweepline Angle A More Complex Part in Its Optimal Orientation

ing die itself. Thus, the effort necessary to optimize

blank orientation is amply rewarded. 0.6
Utilization as a continuous function of sweepline
0.5
angles has also been calculated (using an incremen-
Material utilization
tal rotation algorithm with incremental rotations 0.4
interpolated between the event points) and is pre-
sented in Figure 9. The large slopes of portions of 0.3
the utilization function demonstrate that the effi-
0.2
ciency of a blanking die can be very sensitive to
0 50 100 150
blank orientation. Blank orientation (degrees)
A second example, shown in Figure 10, is based
on a more complexly shaped part, described in Choi Figure 11
et al.4 This part contains 22 vertices, and it leads to Utilization as a Function of Orientation for the Part from Figure 10
34 event points being investigated. The utilization
function at various orientations is given in Figure 11. ial utilization is calculated is a benefit of using the
As can be seen by the single peak, optimal utilization Minkowski sum, which no doubt will also prove
is sensitive to blank orientation in this part as well. very useful in other types of nesting problems.
Execution time for the algorithm with this part was As stamping is almost by definition a high-vol-
0.10 seconds on a 550 MHz Pentium III PC. In con- ume manufacturing operation, even tiny per-part
trast, the execution time using this algorithm for a savings can accumulate into large potential materi-
proprietary automotive blank with 442 vertices, lead- al savings over a stamping tools life. The algorithm
ing to 460 event points, was 11.9 seconds. Clearly, developed here will add negligible time or cost to
the costs involved with employing this algorithm the tooling design process, so its use is justified in
during the design of a die are negligible compared to any tooling design effort.
potential lifetime material savings. A number of research opportunities arise from this
work. For instance, it is generally known that blank-
ing more than one part from the same strip increases
Conclusions material utilization. An exact algorithm to optimize
A new, exact algorithm for optimally orienting the layout of two or more blanks on a strip would be
blanks on strips has been described in this paper. very useful for these problems. A special subclass,
This algorithm overcomes the limitations of previ- which might be computationally more efficient, is
ous approaches to this problem to quickly calculate when blanks are mirror images of each other.
blank orientations and strip widths that maximize Another useful domain extension is to consider 2D
material utilization. Implementation in CAD sys- layout problems, such as are encountered when cut-
tems and tooling-design expert systems is quite ting blanks from sheets. The Minkowski sum is like-
straightforward. The relative ease with which mater- ly to be a useful tool in these problems as well.

246
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000

25. J. Canny, The Complexity of Robot Motion Planning (Cambridge,

References MA: MIT Press, 1988).
1. Industry Canada, Industry Overview Reports: SIC-E 3253 - Motor 26. Z. Li and V. Milenkovic, Compaction and Separation Algorithms for
Vehicle Stampings Industry (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Nov. 22, 1998). Non-Convex Polygons and Their Applications, European Journal of
2. B.T. Cheok and A.Y.C. Nee, Configuration of Progressive Dies, Operations Research (v84, 1995), pp539-561.
Artificial Intelligence for Engg. Design, Analysis and Mfg. (v12, 1998, 27. M. de Berg et al., Computational Geometry: Algorithms and
pp405-418). Applications (Berlin: Springer, 1997).
3. B.T. Cheok, K.Y. Foong, and A.Y.C. Nee, An Intelligent Planning
Aid for the Design of Progressive Dies, Proc. of Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (Part B, v210, 1996), pp25-35.
4. J.C. Choi, B.M. Kim, H.Y. Cho, and C. Kim, A Compact and
Practical CAD System for Blanking or Piercing of Irregular-Shaped Metal Appendix
Products and Stator and Rotor Parts, Intl Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture (v38, 1998), pp931-963. Derivation of Strip Pitch [Eq. (4)]
5. K. Huang, H.S. Ismail, and K.K.B. Hon, Automated Design of
Progressive Dies, Proc. of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Part B,
v210, 1996), pp367-376.
6. H.S. Ismail, S.T. Chen, and K.K.B. Hon, Feature-Based Design of
Progressive Press Tools, Intl Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture
(v36, 1996), pp367-378.
7. Z.C. Lin and C.Y. Hsu, An Investigation of an Expert System for
Shearing Cut Progressive Die Design, Intl Journal of Advanced Mfg. vF=(xF, yF)
Technology (v11, 1996), pp1-11.
8. W. Lu, Z. Weidong, and T. Lihua, A CAD/CAM System for
Multiple-Step Precision Progressive Dies, Advanced Technology of Sweepline
Plasticity 1993Proc. of 4th Intl Conf. on Technology of Plasticity
(1993), pp1710-1715.
9. Y.K.D.V Prasad and S. Somasundaram, CADDS: An Automated Die vINT=(xINT, yINT)
Design System for Sheet-Metal Blanking, Computing and Control Engg.
Journal (v3, July 1992), pp185-191.
10. R. Singh and G.S. Sekhon, A Low-Cost Modeller for Two-
Dimensional Metal Stamping Layouts, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology (v84, 1998), pp79-89.
11. M. Adamowicz and A. Albano, Nesting Two-Dimensional Shapes in vS=(xS, yS)
Rectangular Modules, Computer Aided Design (v8, 1976), pp27-33
12. A.Y.C. Nee, Computer Aided Layout of Metal Stamping Blanks,
Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (v198B, n10, 1984),
pp187-194.
13. R.R. Martin and P.D. Stephenson, Putting Objects into Boxes,
Computer Aided Design (v20, 1988), pp506-514. Figure A1
14. W.W. Chow, Nesting of a Single Shape on a Strip, Intl Journal of Intersection of Edge with Sweepline
Production Research (v17, 1979), pp305-322.
15. W. Qu and J.L. Sanders, A Nesting Algorithm for Irregular Parts and
Factors Affecting Trim Losses, Intl Journal of Production Research (v25,
1987), pp381-397.
Define the point of intersection between the cur-
16. D. Dori and M. Ben Bassat, Efficient Nesting of Congruent Convex rent edge vSvF and the sweepline as vINT. The equa-
Figures, Communications of the ACM (v27, 1984), pp228-235. tion of the line vSvF is as follows:
17. F. Karoupi and M. Loftus, Accommodating Diverse Shapes Within
Hexagonal Pavers, Intl Journal of Production Research (v29, 1991),
pp1507-1519. Ax + By + C = 0
18. P. Jain, P. Feynes, and R. Richter, Optimal Blank Nesting Using
Simulated Annealing, Trans. of ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design
(v114, 1992), pp160-165. where
19. V.E. Theodoracates and J.L. Grimsley, The Optimal Packing of
Arbitrarily-Shaped Polygons Using Simulated Annealing and Polynomial- A = (yF yS)
Time Cooling Schedules, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engg. (v125, 1995), pp53-70.
20. H.S. Ismail and K.K.B. Hon, New Approaches for the Nesting of B = (xS xF) (A1)
Two-Dimensional Shapes for Press Tool Design, Intl Journal of
Production Research (v30, 1992), pp825-837.
21. A.Y.C. Nee, A Heuristic Algorithm for Optimum Layout of Metal C = [(yF yS)xS + (xS xF)yS]
Stamping Blanks, Annals of the CIRP (v33, 1984), pp317-320.
22. Y.K.D.V. Prasad, S. Somasundaram, and K.P. Rao, A Sliding
Algorithm for Optimal Nesting of Arbitrarily Shaped Sheet Metal Blanks, The equation of the line OvINT (where O is the ori-
Intl Journal of Production Research (v33, 1995), pp1505-1520. gin) is as follows:
23. S. Joshi and M. Sudit, Procedures for Solving Single-Pass Strip
Layout Problems, IIE Trans. (v26, 1994), pp27-37.
24. J. ORourke, Computational Geometry in C, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, tan() x y = 0 (A2)
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).

247
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 19/No. 4
2000

To solve for the intersection, use Cramers rule, as Using the identities 1 + tan2() = 1/cos() and
follows: tan() = sin()/cos(),

C B C
p=
0 1 C Acos() + Bsin()
x INT = =
A B A Btan() (A3)
=
( yS y F ) x S + ( x F x S ) yS
tan() 1 ( yS yF )cos() + ( x F xS )sin()
(A6)
x F yS x S y F
=
A C ( yS yF )cos() + ( x F xS )sin()
tan() 0 Ctan()
yINT = =
A B A Btan() (A4)
tan() 1
Authors Biography
Tim J. Nye is an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering
Dept. at McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). Dr. Nye
Strip pitch, p, is as follows: received his BASc in mechanical engineering from the University of
Waterloo, his MSc in industrial and systems engineering from Ohio State
University, and his PhD in operations research from the Management
p = x INT
2
+ yINT
2
(= Ov )
INT
Sciences Dept. at the University of Waterloo. His research interests
include the application of optimization techniques to manufacturing oper-
C (A5) ations, development of solid freeform fabrication processes for forging
= 1 + tan 2 ()
A + Btan()
and casting, design of manufacturing systems, and examining stochastic,
queuing-based lot-sizing models. Dr. Nye is currently a member of SME,
NAMRI/SME, ASME, INFORMS, CORS, and PEO.

248