Phillips explains that another way to look at this inconsistency is in the bottom-position setting. “A programmable control that can quickly set the bottom-stop position is critical to production efficiency,” he says. “Suppose that you have a 10-ft.-long press brake to bend a 10-ft. part. When one side is under the cylinder, or connection point, by extension it’s located where the encoder is located. The bend angle is directly affected by a change in the reading of the position. Where the part sits directly under the cylinder and the encoder, a 0.003-in. change, for example, translates to an 0.003-in. change to the part. Moving away from the cylinder and the same 0.003-in. change will not necessarily make an 0.003-in. change to the part.

“Identifying some of those bottlenecks is critical to being able to solve productivity problems,” Phillips adds.

Beyond Automation

Upstream operations may offer opportunities for improvement beyond automation, such as in the way that the blank is presented to the brake, Phillips notes. “One area of potential improvement involves nesting of the parts to be blanked on a laser or a turret,” he says. “If you’re not cutting them in the same grain direction, one part may be presented with the grain, another against the grain, which results in inconsistent bends. This material problem exists before the blank even gets to the press brake. Then the press brake operators must try to fix it. Fabricators should ensure that a press brake operator doesn’t have to keep shifting the part to align the grain direction.”

Phillips recommends using simulation software to check part bends offline. “The first time through involves simulating part bend, looking for collisions and adjusting the backgauge position as needed,” he says. All of these jobs have to be simulated first and then tweaked on the floor.
“Often, simulation software is built into the controls,” adds Phillips, “but performing simulation on the floor can be unproductive because the operators are spending time simulating the process rather than making parts." 

Another important option available to fabricators, per Phillips: laser bend-angle measurement. “Fabricators can use this tool to verify a good angle and part the first time through,” he says. “They produce less scrap as a result, which can significantly boost productivity.” 

Weighing the Options

Ultimately, fabricators must weigh the pros and cons of automation and upgrades.

Cons. The primary downside of automating is cost. “There’s a cost associated with automating tool changeover,” says Phillips. “Often the return on investment comes down to whether the fabricator runs one shift or three. The payback is much quicker over three shifts.”

The second downside is space, depending on the type of system and the configuration. Automating tool changeover requires tool storage behind the machine, or on a rack to the side of the machine. “There’s a premium on space today for many shops,” Phillips says. “Same thing for a robot. Do you have the area? And if so, can every part be bent using a robot? Is it better to have the robot floor-mounted or mounted overhead on the machine or on the structure above it so that it can descend into position? And, do you have the necessary ceiling height? These questions must be addressed.”

Pros. Safety is a significant pro for press brake automation, Phillips maintains. “Press brakes are considered more dangerous than stamping presses mainly because an operator often holds a part very close to the point of operation where the punch and the die meet, and operate the press brake via a foot switch,” he says. “Doing so can create hazards that can be catastrophic. And, the process becomes even more dangerous If two operators are needed to hold and bend a part, but only one has the foot switch. In this case, fabricators should have two foot switches to operate the brake.”

Lastly, Phillips notes that press brake operators have a greater likelihood of developing range-of-motion injuries. All of these are circumstances when using a robot makes a lot of sense to minimize exposure to hazards. “Robots may crash, but they don’t get injured or have amputations,” he says. “If you crash a robot, you just buy a new end effector.” 

One more reason to automate: consistency.

“From a part standpoint, automation provides a level of consistency that human beings may not,” says Phillips. “Robots and automated equipment consistently will support the part and bend the correct angle. A robot brings the bend to the same place every time, whereas some operators will push the part a little farther and close the angle more. Or, they’ll let the material droop because they’re tired. This opens the bend angle.”

In conclusion, Phillips says: “All of that automation provides a level of consistency, as do items such as tool loaders and angle-measurement devices.” MF 

Editor’s Note: This article offers insights into PMA’s upcoming Press Brake Technology Seminar, to be led by PMA director of technical training Dean Phillips on October 7-8, 2025, in Cleveland, OH. It also is offered virtually. Topics covered include press brake construction and function, tooling, changeover, controls, simulation, and troubleshooting. 

Technologies: Bending, Pressroom Automation

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Start receiving newsletters.