Metal fabrication nesting support - what should be the best approch

Subject: Material Allocation & Nesting Approach – Feedback Request

IFS Version: 25R2

Industry: Metal fabrication for façades (curtain walls)

Business Context

Large curtain wall manufacturing projects are initiated using architectural drawings, which do not contain finalized manufacturing details.

This creates a challenge, as metal extrusions must be procured well in advance, before detailed engineering drawings are completed.

However, based on architectural drawings, the customer can estimate material requirements and proceed with initial purchasing, for example:

• 1000AL201H-5M – Aluminum Bar (H type, powder coated, 5m) – 60 pcs

• 1000AL201H-6M – Aluminum Bar (H type, powder coated, 7m) – 70 pcs

• 1000AL201U-10M – Aluminum Bar (U type, powder coated, 10m) – 25 pcs

These materials are received into inventory and allocated to a project activity.

Later, once engineering is finalized (after design iterations and change orders), the final panel structures are defined.

Manufacturing Requirement

Example finished products:

• TRI-H-3001-2000 – Triangle window (H extrusion, 2000 mm side) – 20 triangles ( Finish-SO-1)

• SQR-H-5530-3000 – Square window (H extrusion, 3000 mm side) – 25 squares ( Finish SO-2)

To support planning, we defined a “naked extrusion” part:

• 1000AL201H-NKD (UOM: meters)

Sub-Cut Product Structures

Sub-Cut Product 1 (Triangle Window)

• NKD extrusion component – Quantity per assembly: 2m

Sub-Cut Product 2 (Square Window)

• NKD extrusion component – Quantity per assembly: 3m

Demand Scenario for Cut Parts

• TRI-H-3001-2000 (CUT-SO1): (3 × 20) units → 120m required

• SQR-H-5530-3000 (CUT-SO2): (4 × 25) units → 300m required

Total linear requirement: 420m

Core Challenge

Inventory consists of fixed-length bars, not linear material:

• 5m bars (60 pcs)

• 7m bars (70 pcs)

Cutting results in varying offcuts:

• Cutting 2m from a 5m bar → 3m leftover

• Cutting 3m from a 5m bar → 2m leftover (usable for 2m requirement)

• Cutting 2 × 3m from a 7m bar → 1m leftover (offcut)

This creates a combinatorial optimization problem, typically solved using a nesting tool.

Current Approach

Planners in as is system manually group cutting jobs and optimize material usage using their nesting tool.

We proposed to use  IFS to manage the process using Operation Blocks with Customisation:

Standard IFS

• Allows grouping of operations into an operation block and material distribution

Proposed Customization

• Allow material selection at the operation block level ( having available material and connected material tabs as a cutomizaton) 

• Enable planners to:

  Select candidate material combinations (e.g., 60 pcs × 5m bars, 20 pcs × 7m bars)

  1. Temporarily reserve these materials

  2. Send the combination to the nesting tool

  3. Evaluate utilization

  4. Accept or reject the combination

Material Allocation Logic

Once a combination is accepted, materials are distributed proportionally based on demand:

Total requirement = 120m + 300m = 420m

CUT-SO1 Allocation (120m):

• 5m bars: 60 × (120 / 420)

• 7m bars: 20 × (120 / 420)

CUT-SO2 Allocation (300m):

• 5m bars: 60 × (300 / 420)

• 7m bars: 20 × (300 / 420)

The naked part is replaced by actual bar parts after nesting,:

This allocation will enable planners with : 

• Accurate material consumption

• Correct cost absorption

• Alignment with real cutting decisions

• Picking with combined picklists

Benefits

• Preserves the existing planner workflow (nesting-driven)

• Integrates with IFS operation blocks

• Enables grouped operation and material control

• Ensures accurate costing and traceability

Feedback Request

Do you see any better alternatives to this approach?

Any feedback or suggestions for improvement would be highly appreciated

https://www.linkedin.com/in/saman2k1/