EVO III Press Brake Programming for Box Parts

The EVO III’s DA-66T is worth considering for box work that can be adequately represented by 2D profiles; the optional DA-69T merits evaluation when interacting walls and return flanges require full 3D part programming. Both routes support automatic bend sequencing and collision detection. Neither can create physical clearance that the machine and tooling lack.

2D programming versus 3D part programming

The EVO III is an Ermaksan hybrid CNC press brake for sheet-metal bending. Its documented control choices include the standard Delem DA-66T and optional DA-69T. The useful buying distinction is how each control represents the part, not simply whether its screen displays a three-dimensional machine.

The DA-66T provides 2D graphical programming, automatic bend-sequence calculation and collision detection, together with full 3D machine setup using multiple tool stations. That combination supports sequence and setup evaluation without making the control a full 3D part-programming system.

The DA-69T provides both 2D and 3D graphical programming, automatic bend-sequence calculation, collision detection and full 3D machine setup with multiple tool stations. Its additional capability is three-dimensional part programming, rather than machine visualization alone.

A practical discriminator is whether the relevant profiles adequately represent the part throughout forming. For a multi-sided box, ask whether perpendicular walls and inward returns introduce interactions that a selected section leaves out. Bend count alone should not determine the upgrade: compare the proposed programming modes with the geometry that makes the job difficult.

Return flanges change tool access

A deep tray needs room for its formed sides to swing toward the press brake and clamping system during later bends. An enclosure component with inward return flanges also needs relief around the punch. A gooseneck profile provides that relief, but its shape must suit the actual flange geometry.

Taller tooling or extenders can increase bending freedom, but the combined tooling and holder heights must fit the machine’s opening and stroke. Excessive height can leave too little space between the tools to handle the workpiece. Box depth therefore cannot be judged from punch height alone.

The bend sequence and punch selection belong in the same application discussion. Each bend changes the workpiece profile, and a different order can change where interference occurs. Evaluate the intermediate shapes with the proposed punches rather than selecting tooling only from the finished box drawing.

Model the setup that will form the box

For a meaningful comparison, use the intended machine configuration and tooling geometry in the simulation. Include punches, dies, holders and adapters, along with the planned tool-station arrangement. Profile-T supports tooling verification and tool-adapter representation; a substitute model should not conceal a restriction in the proposed setup.

Review the bend that produces the tightest clearance, not only the completed box. Punch-height assessment also needs to consider springback and holder dimensions. Do not assume that a nominal finished shape resolves every clearance question.

A feasible modeled sequence also deserves a handling review. Consider insertion, rotation, access to the required gauging position and removal after the final bend. Compare feasible sequences for those movements and the actual backgauge arrangement. Collision detection supports this evaluation; do not treat it as approval of every physical movement or safeguarding condition.

Prepare upcoming box programs offline

Profile-T supports offline programming, bend simulation, feasibility studies and tooling verification. For repeated short-run box families, that provides a way to prepare upcoming programs away from the press brake instead of performing all programming at the machine. The useful operating benefit is moving preparation offline, not an assumed percentage improvement in cycle time.

The edition determines important import capabilities. DXF import is available from Profile-T2D upward, while 3D CAD product import is a Profile-T3D capability. Profile-T3D is the documented offline software for the DA-69T. A proposal labeled only “Profile-T” does not establish which edition or import functions are included.

Confirm the controller identity, control-software version, offline edition and license in the proposed package. The offline software must match the control. Compare the workflow using the drawings or CAD files the programming team actually receives, rather than assuming that a generic software name establishes compatibility.

Choose the package around your box family

Use several representative parts to compare the programming routes. Include a deep open tray and, where relevant, an enclosure with tightly returned edges so the discussion covers both wall clearance and punch relief. Examine how each package represents the part, proposes bend order and organizes tool stations, then review the movements between bends.

The DA-66T deserves consideration when its profile programming and setup evaluation cover the work. The DA-69T deserves consideration when complete-part representation addresses a real programming limitation. For either route, weigh recurring part-family variation and offline preparation needs against the specific capabilities included in the quotation—not the visual sophistication of the display.

I’m John Perry, a Regional Sales Executive at Mac-Tech. I can help you compare EVO III programming and offline-software options with the tooling access, bend order and changeover demands of your box work. Bring a difficult box drawing or folded CAD model, material grade and thickness, return-flange dimensions, tooling details and the proposed control package. Mac-Tech and I can help assess which configuration fits that application and what a representative-part demonstration should show.