FMA Communications Inc.
2135 Point Blvd.
Elgin, IL 60123
President & CEO,
FMA Communications Inc.:
Group Publisher: Dave Brambert
Editor-in-Chief: Dan Davis,
Senior Editor: Tim Heston,
The Tube & Pipe Journal Editor:
Eric Lundin, email@example.com
STAMPING Journal Editor:
Kate Bachman, firstname.lastname@example.org
Practical Welding Today Editor:
Contributing Editor: Amy Nickel
Associate Editor: Sue Roberts
Senior Copy Editor: Teresa Chartos
Graphic Designers: Mary Mincemoyer,
Janell Drolsum, Margaret Clark,
Publication Coordinator: Holly Lipper
Director of Circulation: Kim Bottomley
Circulation Manager: Brenda Wilson
Data Verification Specialist:
Senior Fulfillment Specialist:
Web Content Manager: Vicki Bell
Web Designer: Sherry Young
Senior Web Developer: Mike Kunzelman
Senior Account Representatives:
Statement of Policy
As the official publication of the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association, International, The
FABRICATOR recognizes the need and importance of disseminating information about modern
metal forming and fabricating techniques, machinery, tooling and management concepts for
the metal fabricator. The policy of the publisher and this journal is to be nonpartisan, favoring
no one product or company. The representations of fact and opinions expressed in the articles
are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the publisher and this journal.
By including information on new products, new literature, news of the industry, articles, etc.,
this impartiality is strived for and extends to the mention of trade names. Unless product
identification makes the reference unavoidable, the generic name is used. We acknowledge
that on occasion there may be oversights and errors; the editors regret such oversights and
re-emphasize their policy to be impartial at all times. The publisher reserves the right to
refuse advertising deemed inappropriate for publication in The FABRICATOR, including ads
for classes of products and services not considered of significant interest to the readership.
“ The FABRICATOR” is a service mark and a trademark of the Fabricators & Manufacturers
Association, International, and is used, under license, by FMA Communications Inc. Standard
Rate & Data Service lists our advertising rates in Section 88. Consult SRDS or our current rate
card for full rates and data. Publications of FMA Communications Inc. maintain a policy of
keeping editorial and advertising separate to ensure editorial integrity that most benefits our
readership. Editorial content, including feature articles and press releases, is determined solely
by the publisher. Editorial content cannot be purchased, nor can it be used as a benefit of
advertising dollars spent. Editorial is free-of-charge, subject to space availability, and open to
all interested parties that submit items meeting our editorial style and format as determined
by the publisher. Note: Some photographs printed in this publication may be taken with safety
equipment removed for photographic purposes. However, in actual operation, it is recommended that correct safety procedures and equipment be utilized.
Having read the Readers’ Forum
about the immigration debate
[“The Debate on Immigration
Continues,” The FABRICATOR,
June 2017, p. 14], I must respond.
The issue is not about immigration. The issue is
about illegal immigrants crossing our borders
illegally. In other words, they were not following our
laws. They are illegal immigrants, otherwise known
Call it for what it is: illegal immigrants. They are
not—and I repeat not—undocumented workers.
Please note that the responses you printed from
readers called it what it is. You did not.
First you said the debate is on immigration. It is
Second you called them undocumented workers.
They are not.
Your political correctness is showing. Political correctness is destroying our country. Are you helping it?
I do realize and understand that our line of work is
worldwide. But your country should be priority No.
1. It’s called patriotism.
This issue disappoints me greatly.
Eagle 1 Metal Works
Big Hand for Bending Basics
Fabrication and manufacturing has been a passion
of mine for some time, and over the past three to
four years, I’ve really taken an interest in press
brakes. As an engineer, I’m really fascinated by the
beauty of the math and the physics of air forming
and have thoroughly enjoyed Steve Benson’s many
articles in The FABRICATOR. Thank you so much for
taking the time and energy to write those articles.
I’ve really enjoyed learning how I can better design parts for the press, make my drawings clearer
to the operator, and ultimately design parts that are
actually able to be formed. I’ve even taken some
of the knowledge I’ve learned from your articles
to lead training sessions on how to design formed
parts for other engineers here at my company. It’s
been rewarding to pass on information to others, as
I’ve been so fortunate to have very skilled engineers
and operators invest in me over the years.
I’m very interested in the training that will be happening on Sept. 6-7 in Farmington, Conn. Thanks
again for all the articles, webinars, and overall sharing of knowledge.
Bryan Boggs, PE
Editor’s Note: To learn more about FMA’s Precision
Press Brake Certificate class and other training
opportunities, visit www.fmanet.org/events.
V-die radius reversed?
Editor’s Note: The following comment, originally
posted on thefabricator.com, refers to the June 2017
Bending Basics column, “Time for new tooling.”
In it, a reader had questions about transitioning
his bending operation to air forming, including
details about press brake and tooling selection. The
comment that follows refers to the reader’s current
tooling setup described in the column.
The statements about having a radius at the bottom
of the V-die are backwards. A smaller radius up to
no radius will never cause interference; the bottom
of the V will get further away from the material. A
larger radius will mean that the bottom of the V is
higher and the material could impact it before the
desired angle is bent.
—Randy Franklin, posted online
You are correct—the radius of the die will pull away
from the outside radius of the part as the die radius
decreases, especially when air forming and sometimes with bottoming. This particular example, however, described a coining operation, and the die was
more radius than V-shaped. The illustration used in
the article could have been a little better.
Nonetheless, the radius was large enough for the
part to interact with that radius at the bottom of the
die, but it was significantly smaller than the radius
being forced into it. The shop was coining the material, trying to stamp a 0.125-inch inside radius with a
0.125-in. radius punch nose and bottoming the part
out in a die with an 0.125-in. radius. The die should
have had a 0.25-in. radius to coin correctly.
Trying to force a 0.25-in. outside radius into a
coining die with a 0.125-in. radius at the bottom
only messed up the part, causing excessive tonnage
to develop and ultimately destroying the toolset
Thank you for your comment and the opportunity
—Steve Benson, president, ASMA LLC
by the beauty of the math and the
physics of air forming and have
thoroughly enjoyed Steve Benson’s
many articles in The FABRICATOR.
Thank you so much for taking the time
and energy to write those articles.”