#02

Computer Aided Estimating: What is it?

Estimate doesn’t With computer-aided estimating systems

today, the user has a wide range of
choices.
mean Guesstimate The first choice to be made is between
accuracy or economy. Many of the
anymore ‘economy’ choices are made without
concern for accuracy issues. For the
‘accuracy’ issues, however, there is no
source where you can discover what those
choices involve.
The important fact to remember, when
looking at computer aided estimating
systems, is that each time you send a
quote to a customer, you are betting your
business on the accuracy of the times in
the estimate.

www.microest.com
1
MicroEstimating
There is a
difference
between
believing and
knowing.
With MicroEstimating, you
never have to guess.
Would you believe that many shop estimators are capable of producing more accurate estimates
than the software they use to do so?
Surprised? That scenario is entirely possible. Unless you understand the strategies used to 'build'
a computer-aided estimate, that statement probably will surprise you. And as with any software,
there's also the ever present, added admonition of “garbage in, garbage out.”
Nonetheless, during the past ten years, the value of computer aided estimating has grown as a
manufacturing tool, as manufacturers and job shop owners realized the varied benefits this
software brings.
Published studies in trade magazines often discuss
user's perceptions of direct benefits they've seen.
Still, this is clear: among both prospective- and
existing-users of estimating software, most do not
understand how the software prepares an estimate,
what makes a computer estimate accurate, or the
different emphases played by the machine tool, the
process, or the material in preparing the computer
estimate.
One wonders how anyone selects the proper
package for their needs from among the available
types and variations of software featuring
“estimating” capabilities today. In fact, it is likely that
many perspective users may not understand that
“estimating” software may range from products that The estimate pricing form summarizes
simply replace a pencil and pad, to software called all job costs. Here the estimator assigns
“standards-based,” to systems that might go so far multiple efficiency ratings for setup and
as to simulate the entire machining or fabricating production, based upon quantities. He
process. may consider per piece costs and adjust
for multiple setups. When the estimator
has chosen multiple methods, this screen
identifies the ideal method by quantity.

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
2
What issues must a software estimating program consider?
To give you a quick idea of the complexities that can be involved, here's a simple example for
drilling a half-inch hole, three inches deep. Will the software automatically give you a different
cycle time for a CNC Swiss machine than it does for a turret lathe or an engine lathe? Moreover,
will that be by machine vendor's model and type? Will it give a different time for a different model?
When cycle time is for a specific model, the program times can be quite close.
Those times can be closer yet using machine tool emulation. Emulation is difficult, for it involves
more than simply altering rapid travel rates.
Finally, will the software arrive at a different time for the same metal whether or not it has been
heat treated? If the tool is a carbide or high-speed drill? Or when requiring a different micro-finish
on your turn?
Even more difficult is the process of accounting for the length-to-diameter ratio on an end mill. The
feed/speed books do not address this issue. For example, perhaps the plunging depths are based
upon 1-½ X diameter. What if your depth is ½ X or 3 X the diameter into the stock? The feed rate
will change. Is it necessary for the estimating program have a provision to deal with that situation?

Four quoting and estimating categories

Let's look again at the proposition that a manual estimate might be more accurate than one a
computer generates. That implies neither a case of sloppy users nor of poor input data. Rather, as
we will demonstrate, the same part specifications will result in considerably different results from
the four different types of estimating software. That's correct: there are four different types of
computer-aided estimating software. Yet, if someone surveyed a broad demographic sample of
estimators, few would know that. That's because -- unlike CAD/CAM software -- there is no effort
in the manufacturing industry to teach, or to learn, the underlying strategies that the different
estimating software systems use to produce estimates. By now most of us realize that just
because someone sells a CAD/CAM product, that doesn't mean it is as precise or as sophisticated
as a manual drawing, or as another CAD/CAM product. By now, everyone understands what a
parametric CAD/CAM product offers. How many, however, understand what 'intelligent simulation'
means in relation to estimating software? Or what 'standards' implies?The industry neither has a
standard definition for an estimate, nor universally understands what an “estimating” program
could or should provide. That is a key point and deserves reiteration:
The industry neither has a standard definition for an
estimate, nor universally understands what an
“estimating” program could or should provide.
Because of the lack of any single definition for estimating as it applies to software, many who use
such software may be getting unexpected results — and often they are unaware of the situation.
With 'estimating' software costs ranging from $199 through $10,000, common sense dictates that
differences exist. For the shop that chooses to purchase the $199 package, rather than the $3000
or $10,000 package, often it is an economic decision. Anyone smart enough to own a shop or
manage a department must understand that the capabilities of those packages are different.
Some will argue, however, that if economics really dictated that decision, then one of the more
expensive products might have been a better choice. The lack of understanding -- the lack of
definitions -- is unfortunate and becomes a disservice to estimators and their companies -- and

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
3
even to their customers. With this article, we'd like to suggest a foundation for an industry-wide
understanding of the computer-aided estimating process.
In the quoting/estimating arena, today we find quoting programs and several classes of estimating
software. Quoting programs quickly provide prices for quoting. (See Addendum I.) Within the
estimating classification, some software systems are standards-based, some are engineering-
based, and some exhibit genuine intelligence. Today, some programs also are evolving from one
form toward another, as even software developers begin to better understand the actual
estimating process.

Quoting & Estimating need delineation

Vendors often use “estimating” when describing the quoting function. In fact, quoting software has
no computer-aided estimating capability. In our effort to define what to expect from estimating
software, let's begin by identifying the range of functions performed. Here we find two groups of
software:
Software which simply assists the shop owner to provide a price to the customer. If the
estimator manually calculates or guesses the time it will take, let's call this a computer
prepared quote.
Other software provides, in addition to that same quoting function, estimates of actual times
the job will require in the shop. When the computer estimates the times, let's call this a
computer-generated estimate.
Time is the differentiator. Using time makes it rather simple to differentiate between quoting and
estimating software.

Estimating needs definition and explanation

Having thus removed quoting from the discussion, here is where defining estimating becomes
involved. It is not only because of the diversities between basic program types, such as simple
spreadsheets, report generators, and so forth, but also the many shades of grey within the
estimating (software) category.
Distinguishing between the several current types of estimating programs requires a look at their
basic design. Estimating programs are based on one or more of the following design strategies:
1. Standards-based
2. Engineering-based
3. Intelligent simulation
When we talk about specific, historic system-designs used for estimating software, we can classify
them in this manner. However, since the mid-nineties an evolutionary process has been underway,
and the lines between standards-based estimating and engineering-based estimating are blurring.
Similarly at the upper end, where we find “non-intelligent” and “intelligent” estimating systems.
Remember that pure quoting does not calculate time, while estimating bases its quote on
calculated time. 'Standards-based' estimating programs use a table with standard times assigned
to similar operations. Systems which rely on libraries of machine speeds and feeds are
'engineering-based.' Here is where the blurring begins. Clarifying this point requires only the
knowledge to ask the right question.

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
4
Differentiating between the engineering-based and the “intelligent” packages is harder. Both
systems come up with an answer — for the portion(s) of the process that they compute.
Determining — rather, knowing how to determine — how thorough the estimating program can be,
is far more difficult.

Standards-based toward engineering-based evolution

Standards-based estimating software, while similar to quoting software, can take more time for
initial setup after it is purchased. It may require the user either to enter the standards or to update
those provided to reflect the shop's actual operations. Often this software already has the
standards included; however, companies must realize that if they use someone else's standards
they may only be accepting someone else's guesses. In estimating, there really are no industry-
wide standards -- there are only company standards. If you purchase a standards-based system,
you will want, at the least, the ability to quickly and easily change any standard.
Standards-based knowledge offered the earliest computer-aided estimating assistance
andprograms based on this alone may provide the least accurate estimating method. (See
Addendum II.) The ongoing evolution is from the standards-based programs toward the
engineering-based programs. Many vendors are revising their systems to become more
engineering-based. While some still don't deliver a precise conclusion, they can be more accurate
than the standards-based packages.
These evolving, pseudo engineering-based systems may already include one or more
sophisticated modules for hole making or milling (vs. individual computations for complex
movements and operations). They employ simple formulae to compute the time required for a
procedure — mill a pocket, or drill a hole. What they may lack in any formula is a concept of
machine movement and operations. Typically, the software in this evolving class also omits
consideration for many idle time elements or specific machine capabilities. For example, a 600
IPM machining center does not make 600 IPM for a one-inch move. In addition, while some
systems include basic indexing times, they neglect the more precise indexing time components,
such as acceleration/deceleration, spindle index, or rapid ramp-up.

Machining mathematics — by itself — is quite simple:

(CUT LENGTH)/FEED = REVOLUTIONS; REVOLUTIONS/RPM = TIME
Figuring cut length is fairly simple:
To ream a hole one inch deep, you will ream one inch deep plus an approach distance. To
mill a pocket, you will have to take multiple passes of a particular length.
The difficulty lies in knowing the time the operation takes on a particular machine — for example
an engine lathe. Does the operator have to manually turn the crank to remove the drill and the
chips? And then turn the crank back in to resume drilling? That process knowledge is more
important than simple mathematical results, and it adds a level of complexity you should expect in
the better estimating systems. This is the level of program depth that is beginning to be called
'intelligent simulation' estimating.

Engineering-based estimating
The engineering-based estimating programs use the same formulae used when manual

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
5
estimators need a precise cost. They are unchangeable, based on the laws of mechanics. Given a
drill diameter and style, the depth of hole, the material, and the machine doing the drilling, there
can be only one correct time. The formula to derive that time never changes. Feed rates and
surface footage-rates may change; once those rates are set, the math is constant. The same is
true of idle times. For different machines, the rates may differ, but the movements are the same.
While a standards-based system having a standard for every half inch of hole depth gives ½- inch
accuracy (See Addendum II.), in an engineering-based system, setting up the core datacovers any
hole, at any depth, and is accurate in every situation. Period. There's no stated or implied
disclaimer of being “within a half an inch.” The engineering-based system may seem to demand
more setup than a standards-based system. However, you could never set up enough standards
to reach the same level of accuracy. There is a difference in the time needed to drill a one-inch
hole and a hole 1.021 inch deep, and the engineering approach can be 100% correct -- but the
standards-based approach can only be approximate.
Being engineering-based, however, doesn't guarantee perfection. Speeds and feeds data differ for
every material, every tool, every machine type. If an engineering-based estimating program
doesn't provide speeds and feeds data for every material, but rather has assigned them on the
basis of material groups, then accuracy is sacrificed.
While any engineer can look up the feed rate for 12L14 steel, that data is irrelevant without
knowing the machine type. Would not use the same feed rate on a CNC lathe as on a screw
machine? The speeds and feeds data is only the starting point. If every material is given its own
speed and feed and multiple classes, you can change 12L14 to represent your shop's experience,
without affecting 12L50. That would not be possible in any engineering-based system that
grouped speeds and feeds by material type.
The engineering-based computer-aided
estimating system mimics the correct manual
estimating method, using the same equations.
The added benefit of computer aided
estimating is its ability to take more into
account, such as idle time movements or rapid
travel rates, to retain the correct information,
and to always use the correct data. These
examples are simply some of the more difficult
to account for times, since there are so many.

Intelligent emulation
Having the capability to account for issues
like rapid travel and complex idle times
defines the difference between the
engineering-based and the estimating A CNC Processing editor screen lets an
systems that emulate the machines — we estimator review the process and to try what-
call this intelligent emulation. if scenarios.
Changing any speeds or feeds here, for
Compared to standards-based estimating,
example, will instantly change the Cycle Time
engineering-based is more comprehensive,
and Gross Production figures at the bottom
and more accurate. An approach based upon
of the screen – the estimator knows
intelligent simulation will improve upon the
immediately the results of his changes.
engineering-based results, but requires the

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
6
same amount of data from the user, the same effort for initial setup. It's claim for being closer to
the actual time is that it is a closer representation to the real world. In its estimate, it attempts to
include everything significant that will happen, as opposed to what should happen. When it comes
to estimating, you really don't care that it should take one minute -- you care about how long it will
take.
If you rely on unchangeable standards, you're letting the computer tell you how long something
should take, rather than the software determining how long it does take. Once again, it comes
down to the estimator knowing the time the machinist requires for each step. That's where
intelligent simulation attempts to determine how long it really will take as opposed to how long it
should take.

Intelligence in humans relates both to ability and to capability.

By ability, let's distinguish between the genius, a person of average intelligence, and someone
with a low IQ. Then, capability could relate to the difference between an adult and a child.
Computer software is no different; some software is both smarter and has greater capability than
others.
Returning to our human analogy, compare the step between engineering-based and intelligent
simulation to a high school math whiz. The whiz can compute any math problem; an engineer,
however, knows how to apply that knowledge to building a car. In addition to the in-depth machine
knowledge required to add such intelligent simulation to an estimating program, it requires tedious
and time consuming programming effort, as well. How many types of machines are used today by
shops? How many different styles? How many different vendors? All this must be factored into the
simulation process. It is costly for a software vendor to develop and maintain such software. An
estimating system that provides generic standards — such as for turning or drilling — cannot be
compared to one that recognizes 60 independent machine types for those processes.
Does the program handle every job the same way? Some do. They assume that manual lathes,
CNC lathes, turret lathes, automatic screw machines and others require the same time. In that
situation, your estimate is the same for each machine type! Can we call that an estimate?Perhaps
it is a more educated guesstimate than many would make without software — but probably not. At
least in the manual situation a person knows enough to allow for the idle movements, indexing,
and other factors specific to the machine in question.
A thorough estimate provides allowances for clearances between tools and makes use of actual
spindle speeds and feeds from the gear charts, when appropriate. It will also consider rapid travel
rates based on distance and spindle speed ramp-up/ramp-down. Estimating software that
intelligently simulates machine operations allows for all these items, but to do so, it must be
written for each specific machine. This is the key difference between engineering-based and
intelligent simulation estimating software.
Given the choice between a generic estimating program with no machine
specific knowledge, a standard, and a human guess, you should
take the person over the computer every time.
Similarly, a bad guess is worse than no guess. Is a pseudo-engineering system any better — or
worse — than a quoting system? At least the quoting system forces YOU to come up with a time,
while the former may assign an inaccurate time, with the implication that it is correct.

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
7
The determinations that should be made:
Ÿ How the software calculates cycle time
Ÿ Does it calculate cycle time for specific types of machines (CNC mill, Bridgeport)
Ÿ Does it calculate a cycle time for a specific model within a type (model A or B A
genuinelyintelligent system accounts for:
Ÿ Set up time
Ÿ Idle time
Ÿ Complete machine time for the correct type and model of machine
Ÿ Available horsepower
Ÿ Minimum and maximum RPM and feed
Ÿ Fixed or variable RPMs and feed rates
Ÿ Special lever/gear/control settings or rules

Such software literally emulates the machine's movements, stepping through them one at a time.
For example, to estimate a facing operation, the program doesn't resort to a single predefined
equation; rather it simulates what will actually happen by calculating every revolution and
recording the time.
To determine the correct, total time, for example, the estimating program literally models the
operation for each process involved and the software loops through every turn the machine will
make, making adjustments at every step to account for RPM, feed, minimums, maximums and
soforth. To do constant surface footage correctly, the program computes a new RPM for every
revolution and considers minimum and maximum RPM at each step. The program must know
things like how long it takes to reach top speed, as well as what the top speed is for the type of
tooling being used; how long to remain at top speed; and how long it will take to reach center. In
other words, the SFM formula at exact center calculates an infinite RPM (which is not possible),
and it steps down from there towards the outside diameter of the cut. The machine maximum
RPM must be considered. The estimating loop goes through every movement, whether for lathe or
pocket milling. Machine tool emulation is the basis of the estimate's accuracy, and it is based upon
the combination of all pertinent parameters at every moment in the operation.
Similar, stand-alone software called “tool path optimization” software, is considered fairly new
today, when applied to NC output from CAD/CAM programs. However, this feature also should be
the basis of any comprehensive computer-aided estimating program — and there it is referred to
as machine tool emulation. That's what an intelligent, engineering-based estimating program
does. Some have been doing so for a long time.
In the end, a choice must be made between accuracy and economy. Remember, however, that
each time you send out a quote, you bet your business on the accuracy of the times in the
estimate.

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
8
 Addendum – What is 'quoting'?
Precisely, what is “quoting” software? To begin with, quoting software can be very simplistic -- as
simple as a spreadsheet. It is quite fast, in fact quoting software is the fastest method for
obtaining a customer price, next to guessing. It is not standards-based, but can provide a
consistent template to follow. Still, the quotes can be only as good as the guesses that the person
enters. Not being standards-based indicates that your guess today could be different from your
guess tomorrow. Quoting software is not expected to provide consistently accurate estimates, only
a speedy means of obtaining a quote for a customer.
Why would you use quoting software? Primarily for simplicity, often for the software's low cost, and
perhaps to help employees gain familiarity with the quoting process. Quoting software might only
be the front end of a shop management software system -- a speedy means of entering the basic
part information required to produce a quote, and which also is needed by other modules of the
shop management software. Since there are no databases to set up, little of your time goes
toward setup. The results typically will be no more complex than what you can do on a
spreadsheet.

Addendum II – Estimating a 1-inch hole with standards

Consider a simple standard for a one-inch hole, drilled one inch deep into a steel part. To be truly
accurate, there would need to be standards for every drill diameter, every drill depth, every drill-
type, and every material. You can see the impossible number of standards suggested by this one
example. To avoid this data entry nightmare, not to mention a need for gigabytes of disk storage,
software developers will interpolate “nonstandard” situations. Interpolation may be quite
appropriate in operations like assembly, where there are no speeds, no feed's, and no factors that
affect time like the increasing effect of resistance from chips in deep holes, but interpolation is
inappropriate for machining.
A standard that can be described is the time it takes to turn one revolution. Using such a standard,
an estimator could apply the number of revolutions required to drill a hole to arrive at the time.
However, this standard is the basis for an engineering-based system, and is not found in a
standards-based system. So you can see that while interpolation is appropriate for manual
elements, it does not apply equally well to machining, because interpolation cannot account for
their variations.
If a company chooses to use a standards-based estimating system, then it should do so on the
basis that any standards included with the package are not its standards and will need to be
modified. Still, the standards are just guesses -- if not someone else's, then they are yours. Your
guesses could be different next week. The hackneyed computer phrase could apply: Garbage in,
garbage out.Time standards can be proven or fine tuned. The times provided are corrected based
on reality or time studies, real things that are done. However, if you correct a time standard based
on how you feel today, then you are doing nothing better than a quoting program might, and you
really are not correcting anything. In other words, if every time you look at that “time” and say 'that
time looks a little wrong,' and you change it, you've defeated the purpose of the standards-based
software package.
A downside of standards-based estimating is this. To deal with a broad range of situations, the
number of standards can be held to an acceptable level, but your groupings will become quite
large. To demonstrate the impractical lengths to which this could be taken, consider this example
of a standard: A standard for drilling holes having diameters from 1-5 inches, to depths varying

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
9
from 1-5 inches. But what's the point? This standard is too broad, so why not begin adding more
and more precise standards? That means there will be more to be entered, more to be
maintained, and users might easily end up with a database containing 10's of thousands of
standards. And that's quite likely, considering the fact that there are thousands of material types,
each requiring a standard.
That would be a pure standards-based approach to estimating, and that is impractical. So,
standards-based programs may use interpolation to determine the time for the 1.5” hole from the
1.0” standard.
Realistically, you can't take pure ratio's for they do not consider the travel times, nor chip removal
times. Such a method would be a combination between a pure standards-based approach, where
there is no interpolation of the data, and a standards-based with interpolation. Standards-based
without interpolation uses the standards as provided. Standards-based with interpolation indicates
that some manipulation has occurred using the standard, based upon the specific circumstances
of the job. Now, here's the danger with interpolation: it can invalidate a standard, completely, for a
standard is a standard only if it retains its value. Any modification, whether by guessing or by
interpolation, destroys the standard and there no longer is reliability.
For a standards-based estimating system, its accuracy is based on how much time you put into it.
In reality, the time it will take a user to correctly set up a standards-based package will rule out
your setting it up correctly. For example, all it takes is a change in cutting fluid to invalidate your
standards, for suddenly everything is different. You finally got your half a million standards set up
and purchasing changes cutting fluids because of price or performance. And don't forget: the cut
time is different for different machines -- say a 5 a 10 HP lathe -- and the idle times are different.
The possibilities are endless.

Addendum III — Feature Recognition

The success the solid modeling markets have seen to CAD products, apart from the steep price
decline in the past few years, is obvious: even someone in accounting can look at the image and
recognize the part. They do not need an engineering background to be able to “see” the part. And
from that solid, it is possible to make G-code, since you can recognize all of the features: the
holes, flat surfaces, radii, and so forth. As a result, most CAM systems now either integrate with a
solids package, or have their own, internal solids drawing capability.
Now, feature recognition promises to take part design in a new direction. Solids packages enable
feature recognition by other software. No more visualization, no more isometric views. Clusters of
software packages that use solids will revolve around a technical database. This supports a
consistent method of programming and manufacturing. In that technical database will be
relationships of features to manufacturing methods. For example, a database entry for a ¼ - 20
tapped hole, ¾deep 6061-T6 aluminum may specify that a .201 diameter drill be used and a .125
center drill spot that hole prior to drilling. When you machine a part out of 316 SS with a certain
finish, the technical database can suggest that you machine using the specified speeds and feeds
and tools you have determined are appropriate. Consistency. This is the way that hole will be
made, because this is the rule you set up. Though this is the way it should be done today, on this
machine, it doesn't mean that you can't change it. However, it helps you to quickly and efficiently
identify how a part should be made.
Did you wonder why I mentioned a material in the previous example? Why is the material
important in a solids program? Because knowing it there can provide the part weight, center of

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
10
gravity, and possibly highlight other potential design or manufacturing challenges. Solids are
already at the next level, today, where finite element analyses can help designers make parts
faster, stronger and more efficiently. A solids program gives you the power of information.

Automatic feature recognition and estimating

With MicroEstimating’s feature recognition, an estimator, knowing a part was designed in a solids
program, can click on a pull down menu and choose “recognize features.” When the software
recognizes a “shaft adapter,” and the estimator selects the machining center to run the part, the
software will suggest a center drill, drill, face milling operation, contour end milling operation, and
a burnishing operation. That's the set of work instructions based on the features it saw.
The estimator can to drag and drop and rearrange any tool or process, based upon his knowledge
of the facility. The point here is that this is a technology tool and will still require experience to
know what can be done.Testing of feature recognition in computer aided estimating has already
begun. Consider a simple, flat part, linked from a solids package to estimating and then to a
CAD/CAM system. The identified features from the solids technical database are matched with the
estimating program's technical database. With this data, the estimating program recognizes the
part and knows which tools to use. Perhaps there are several machines on which the job might
run, so the estimator selects the machine.
By automatically reviewing the machine parameters and the part, he may find that the initially
selected machine is unavailable, or otherwise not optimal for the job; perhaps the first choice has
insufficient tonnage, tolerances, or size limitations. Therefore, another machine could be selected
by the estimator.
Let's take this to the next step, by linking with a tool management database. Perhaps it is found
that one of the appropriate tools is unavailable and it is necessary to modify some tool selections.
The estimating program helps make this choice, based on machine parameters/capabilities.
Finally, the software calculates the cycle time, applies it against the shop labor rates, efficiencies,
and other considerations and provides you the part cost.

Addendum IV — Estimating example

Pocket Mill Example
4.25” long x 3.25” wide x 2.25” deep pocket
.750 diameter end mill 50% step over
1” axial doc (depth of cut)
Standards based
31.078 cubic inches / standard time to mill 1 cubic inch = time
Engineering based - dumb
31.078 cubic inches / removal rate per cubic inch = time
Engineering based - smart
7 radial passes x 4.25” long x 3 axial passes = 89.251 inches
89.251 inches / feed rate = time

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
11
Simulation
Note: Rapid travel consists of acceleration time + rapid travel rate based on rate increasing
with distance + deceleration time
Note: All feed rates consider maximum cutting feed rate and horsepower of machine
1. Rapid approach part from tool home position
2. Plunge cut - .750 diameter x 1.00 deep (plus approach distance) using plunge feed rate
3. First pass - .750 wide slot x 3.5 long 100% buried using slot feed rate adjusted for axial
depth
4. Step over - .750 wide step over .375 deep (50% of cutter) using slot feed rate
5. Peripheral pass - 3.50 long pass at .375 radial depth using peripheral feed rate
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 for 6 peripheral passes
7. Last peripheral pass - Only a partial pass remains 3.50 long at .250 deep using new
peripheral feed rate
8. Rapid move away from part .020 for clearance
9. Rapid travel back to original plunge location to begin second axial pass
10. Repeat steps 2 - 9 for second axial pass
11. Only .250 remains for semi finish pass, so repeat steps 2 - 9 using .250 axial doc and
adjust feed rates accordingly
12. Rapid out of pocket 2.25 plus approach for clearance
13.Rapid back to home position for tool change if required
Rough Turning Example
3.500” stock size
3.075” diameter x 1.00 long
2.600” diameter x 1.00 long
2.150” diameter x .750 long
.125” radial depth of cut/pass Constant SFM
.005 radial depth left for grinding
Standards based
1. Standard time to turn 3.5” diameter .5 deep factored for actual 3.075 diameter and .2125
depth
2. Standard time to turn 3.0” diameter .5 deep factored for actual 2.600 diameter and .2375
depth
3. Standard time to turn 2.5” diameter .5 deep factored for actual 2.150 diameter and .2250
depth

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
12
Engineering based - dumb
1. 2 passes at 3.500 diameter x 2.750 long/feed rate +
2. 3 passes at 3.075 diameter x 1.750 long/feed rate +
3. 2 passes at 2.600 diameter/feed rate x .750 long = time
Simulation
Note: Rapid travel consists of acceleration time + rapid travel rate based on rate increasing
with distance + deceleration time
Note: All feed rates consider maximum cutting feed rate and horsepower of machine Note:
RPM is recalculated at each depth of cut to allow for constant SFM
Note: RPM is constantly compared to machine maximum and minimum for conflict Note:
RPM is calculated at cutting point of tool (diameter - doc. *2)
Note: Approach distance (.100) is added to each pass
1. Rapid travel from home position to .100 away from face of part
2. Turn 3.250 diameter x 2.850 long at .125 doc
3. Machine up face .125 + .010 to clean up the face and retract the tool
4. Rapid 2.850 back to face of part and down to next cutting diameter
5. Only .0775 remains on first diameter after leaving .005 grinding stock so look ahead to
next diameter. Turn 3.00 diameter 1.85 long at .125 doc, face from 3.00 to 3.080, turn 1
inch at .0775 doc and face up .0775 + .010 to clean up face and retract tool. (Feed rate
varies with doc and RPM is calculated appropriately including facing cuts)
6. Rapid 1.850 back to face of part and down to next cutting diameter
7. Turn 2.750 diameter 1.850 long at .125 doc and face up .125 + .010
8. Only .070 remains on the second diameter, so look ahead to next diameter. Turn 2.50
diameter .850 long at .125 doc, face from 2.50 to 2.605, turn 1 inch at .070 doc and face
up .070 + .010
9. Rapid 1.850 back to face of part and down to next cutting diameter
10. Turn 2.250 diameter .850 long at .125 doc and face up .125 + .010
11. Only .045 remains on the third diameter, so turn 2.160 diameter .850 long and face up
.045 + .010 to clean the face and retract the tool
12. Rapid back to home position for next tool change if required

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
13
This screen represents a
Davenport screw machine to
the estimator. Across the top
of the screen are varieties of
tools that can be assigned to
this machine's five stations.
After choosing tools for each
of the five stations, the
estimator assigns an
operation (form, Cutoff) to
each cross slide. With
minimum input, the estimating
does the work and also
provides the graphical
analysis tools that help the
estimator select the best
machine for the ideal results.

For the CNC Turning

operation, the estimator
selected five operations from
the Available Operations list
at the left: Face & Rough
Turn, Finish Turn, Center
Drill, and Tap. These
accomplish the same result
as the Davenport method
above. When given the
diameter and length of the
turn, the estimating system
returns the maximum depth-
of-cut based upon the
machine horsepower and
machine type. Complete
standard work center
descriptions include
predefined load, unload, and
setup time standards.

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
14
 SOFTWARE FUNCTION CAPABILITY CHECKLIST
To Assist in the Software Evaluation Process
Developed by and reprinted with permission of the PMPA's Software User's Group

ESTIMATING

A. General
1. Quote Log
2. Quotes Due Report

B. Header Information
1. Integrated to customer file
2. Quote # internally assigned
3. Salesman's commission file

C. Material
1. Material weight calculated
2. Scrap factor estimated
3. Scrap factor calculated
4. Scrap value calculated
5. Number of quantity fields

D. Operations
1. Sequence numbers in multiples of 10
2. Work Center numbers
3. Operation numbers
4. Operation description field
5. Setup hours and rate override ability
6. Cycle time in seconds calculation
7. Cycle time in seconds estimated
8. Production rate estimated
9. Production rate calculated
10. Production rate in Pcs/Hr
11. Efficiency factor for each workcenter
12. Override default efficiency factor
13. Efficiency factor based on bar loading/tool life
14. Factor for # machines attended by operator

E. Tooling Costs
1. Special tooling amortization option
2. Special tooling charged to customer option
3. Perishable tooling amortization option
4. Description field

continued...

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
15
F. Outside operations
1. Minimum charges
2. Price per unit
3. Surcharge option
4. Freight charge
5. Certification required (Y or N) field
6. Final cost calculation

G. Optional Information
1. Estimated annual usage
2. Inventory carrying charge (%/yr) constant
3. Calculate Economic Production Qty (EPQ)
4. Calculate Economic Order Qty (EOQ)

H.Reports
1. Quote Log or Status Report
2. Estimate with details
3. Quote from or letter for customer
4. Monthly Quote Summary

MicroEstimating www.microest.com
16
Make more money in less time with MicroEstimating

Manufacturing success means beating the competition, not yourself. To be profitable, you must be
accurate, flexible and fast.

Overpriced estimates eliminate you. Even worse, getting the contract with numbers that don’t
account for everything shreds profits. One project running on bad numbers means that the next
five profitable jobs are just making up for the loss.

Get profitable right now with MicroEstimating

MicroEstimating has been helping small and large businesses improve profitability for the nearly
four decades. With Micro on your side, you can see more profits by improving efficiency and
accuracy in cost estimating.

And if that’s not enough, you’ll start delivering lightning fast, deadly accurate quotes to your
customers at a speed that puts you in the front of the line every time.

MicroEstimating increases profitability and accuracy from the minute you start using our
proprietary cost estimating software. Whether you are an Original Equipment Manufacturer,
Contract Manufacturer, Job Shop, or a buyer of custom parts requiring Should Costing, our
manufacturing cost estimating software can be tailored and calibrated to fit any estimating or
costing requirements.

Partners & Integration

• Anvizent
• Camworks
• Epicor
• Global Shop Solutions MicroEstimating
• Henning Software
• Infor
• Microsoft MICRO ESTIMATING SYSTEMS, INC.
• MIE Solutions 50 CHAUTAUQUA AVE
• ProfitKey LAKEWOOD NY 14750
• Realtrac
• Shoptech
• SolidWorks Phone 262.860.0560
Fax 262.860.0561
E-Mail [email protected]
*Partner Brands are trademarks of
their respective companies and do
not necessarily constitute an endorsement
by any party.
www.microest.com

MES-18-1649
17