Bieger
FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF OPTIBAT AND EURA TO THE NEW FRONTIERS OF BARWISER:
The second part in a series of articles dedicated to "element processing"
The previous issue discussed the difference between “position” and “element” processing.
Briefly, "position processing" involves sets of identical bars while "element processing" usually concerns sets of different bars need to create a beam, pillar or other constructional structure.
An “element” is thus an “assembly kit” of bars (straight or shaped) used to make up a given armature. It is evident that the reality of building sites requires armatures involving identical and diversified bars. It is easy to understand that cutting and eventually bending identical bars is much simpler than cutting and bending different bars and then grouping them in individual bundles.
Things change radically if we look at the situation from the point of view of site installation teams. On site, it is much more convenient to receive armatures in orderly fashion as a ready-to-use assembly kit minimising errors and without the need for specialist operators. In conclusion, site delivery of armature elements is more "complicated" for the processing centre but an enormous advantage for site installation teams.
In this context, it is not surprising that “element” processing is highly appreciated when forming centres are in charge of on-site armature installation operations.
In the past, element processing was a very complex and expensive process that often ended up involving manuals tools since there was no automatic machinery capable of ensuring an economic solution to the problem.
Conventional automatic machinery (cutting centres, bending robots, shaping machines, etc.) were designed for high output but not for high flexibility. Whatever the automatic machine, producing - for example - 100 identical workpieces is very easy and fast since only a single set of data has to be input alongside straightforward machine tooling. On the other hand producing 25 bundles or 4 bars each with different diameters, lengths and shapes is much more complex and involves much longer processing times. The reality of element processing had to be tackled with new and different tools compared with traditional systems.
There are two types of such new systems:
1) appropriate software for the preparation of job lists optimised by single elements
2) new and highly flexible machinery ensuring fast setting times, capable of producing a high number of elements per hour.
Schnell began its research into these two fields in 1996-1997 in relation to demand from many clients who were unsatisfied by the machines and software available at the time. The initial response was the design of a bar machine and a coil machine equally “capable” of producing single elements:
A) the “Optibat” cutting system
B) the “Eura” shaping systems
A) The Optibat system is still the "best seller" in our range. It cuts and unloads bars in 6~9 different positions on roller tracks. In this way, 6~9 bundles of bars even of different diameters are created, that are then sent to the next bending station complete with an identification label.
The operator at the bending station (a bending robot or a system based on traditional bending machines) receives a bundle where probably only a few bars have to be bent but since the overall number of bars is generally low, the operator readily identifies those to be extracted and bent (thanks to the identification of different diameters and lengths).
At the end of process, the bent and straight bars are grouped and bound together: an “element” ready to be assembled or sent to the building site.
B) “Eura” shaping machines, on the other hand, process coils and can change bar diameters in just a few seconds. They straighten and shape the bar in every direction, even at the two ends, thanks to two bending workheads.
The processed bars (straight or shaped) are then gathered by a delivery system with channels for each “element”
Unlike the Optibat system - that needs a downline bending station - Eura outputs a finished product.
Both solutions present advantages and disadvantages.
OPTIBAT
ADVANTAGES
- lower investment
- processes bars of any diameter
DISADVANTAGES
- a downline bending station and relative labour are required
- optimisation is necessary
EURA
ADVANTAGES
- outputs a finished product
- optimisation is not necessari
DISADVANTAGES
- higher investment
- processes coils not available over diameter 16 in most countries, so that elements containing bars of larger diameters can not be worked
The experience gained with Optibat and Eura in element production has enabled Schnell to develop immense know-how and understand the many aspects involved in this new production approach.
Schnell has realised, for example, that the software packages available on the market were unable effectively to manage the new production approach and that - to be successful - element production demanded totally new machines ensuring an even higher level of flexibility.
The Next Issue will thus discuss BAR-WISER, the new Schnell machine specialised in element production, and the GRAPHICO-OPTIMO software package, an essential management tool for forming centre - and especially those aiming to work with this new approach. more... Bieger |
|
