Custom SMC compaction tooling RFQ support for AFPM stators, covering press direction, 100-240 ton press fit, demolding, density risk, tool life, samples.
Use this datasheet as an RFQ planning framework for custom SMC compaction tooling. Public ranges and equipment references are not production guarantees. Exact tool route, press fit, sample timing, ownership, tool life, inspection evidence, and pilot readiness should be confirmed after buyer-controlled CAD review or under NDA.
| Parameter | RFQ Planning Range | Engineering Note |
|---|---|---|
| Tooling phase | DFM, prototype tool, pilot tool, or production tool | A learning tool, pilot-intent tool, and production tool can differ in tool steel, cavity strategy, maintenance, evidence package, cost, and revision control. |
| Supported part families | AFPM stator rings, segmented stator blocks, YASA teeth, 3D flux pole pieces, compact yokes, and special SMC electromagnetic parts | Shape support depends on compaction direction, green strength, density target, ejection access, and buyer acceptance criteria. |
| Compaction route review | Single-direction, multi-level, segmented, or hybrid tooling feasibility discussion | Press direction, powder fill, punch access, die split, compaction ratio, ejection, and green-part handling must be reviewed together. |
| Press and equipment-fit planning | 100-240 ton and higher press-fit discussion when part envelope, density target, and tooling layout require it | Treat tonnage as a drawing-dependent tooling review item, not as a public promise that every part can be made on a specific press. |
| Part envelope review | OD 30-800 mm; ID 25 mm min.; axial height 5-110 mm when applicable | Large rings, tall teeth, thin walls, and segmented teeth create different filling, ejection, inspection, and handling risks. |
| Fragile-feature risk map | Thin teeth, deep slots, sharp transitions, high aspect ratios, undercuts, side-wall taper, root radius, air-gap face, and segment edge | Demolding microcracks and chipped edges are usually controlled by geometry, ejection route, draft/radii, green strength, and inspection criteria. |
| Density and green strength | Material and geometry dependent; 7.4-7.6 g/cm3 density target discussion where route allows | Density uniformity affects magnetic performance, tool wear, crack risk, sample strength, and repeatability from prototype to pilot. |
| Ejection and release control | Ejector surface, witness-mark tolerance, air-gap face protection, draft, corner relief, and handling route by drawing | The tool should be reviewed around how the green part leaves the die, not only around the final solid model. |
| Tooling commercial boundary | Tool cost, sample charge, inspection charge, ownership, storage, maintenance, tool-life assumption, and revision-trigger rule | Procurement can compare tooling quotes only when hidden sample, maintenance, rework, and ownership assumptions are exposed. |
| Post-process allowance | Machining allowance, thermal process, coating, corrosion protection, deburr/chip criteria, and packaging method | Post-process needs can alter datum choice, surface condition, density measurement, and sample acceptance. |
| Trial sample release evidence | Sample IDs, FAI, CMM/3D scan, CTQ report, density or weight baseline, visual chip/burr notes, optional magnetic data, and packing note | The first tool loop should release evidence tied to drawing revision and buyer acceptance criteria, not loose samples alone. |
| Pilot transfer readiness | Accepted revision, remaining risk list, inspection method, maintenance plan, packaging rule, pilot quantity, and change-control gate | A prototype tool should not be treated as pilot-ready unless its evidence, maintenance, revision, and volume assumptions are documented. |
Evidence Pack
For custom product RFQs, the useful proof is a controlled evidence package: drawings, material route, inspection records, validation scope, and sample acceptance notes.
Evidence to Prepare
STEP/DXF/2D drawing, revision ID, datum scheme, CTQs, press direction, die split, punch access, ejection path, and fixed-versus-adjustable feature list.
Acceptance Focus
Prevents tooling cost and sample timing from being approved before the geometry is manufacturable as an SMC pressed part.
Evidence to Prepare
Part envelope, projected area, density target, material route, tool layout, cavity assumption, 100-240 ton or higher press-fit discussion, and NDA-only equipment evidence when needed.
Acceptance Focus
Lets procurement discuss realistic tooling routes while avoiding public-page promises that may not match the final CAD.
Evidence to Prepare
Fragile-feature map, corner radius notes, draft or relief notes, air-gap face protection, ejection witness criteria, visual chip/burr standard, and sample inspection plan.
Acceptance Focus
Targets the failure modes that matter for YASA teeth and thin AFPM stator features before the buyer spends a full tooling budget.
Evidence to Prepare
Material route, density target, weight baseline, local-density concern list, green handling route, post-process exposure, sample IDs, and optional magnetic validation scope.
Acceptance Focus
Connects tooling decisions to magnetic performance and mechanical robustness instead of relying on geometry screenshots.
Evidence to Prepare
Tooling cost line, sample charge, inspection charge, tool type, ownership term, maintenance boundary, storage rule, tool-life assumption, and revision-trigger language.
Acceptance Focus
Gives engineering, quality, and procurement a shared approval basis before prototype, pilot, or production tooling is ordered.
| Buyer Checkpoint | Evidence to Prepare | Acceptance Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Can buyer-owned CAD be converted into a compaction route before design freeze? | STEP/DXF/2D drawing, revision ID, datum scheme, CTQs, press direction, die split, punch access, ejection path, and fixed-versus-adjustable feature list. | Prevents tooling cost and sample timing from being approved before the geometry is manufacturable as an SMC pressed part. |
| Can press and equipment-fit assumptions be reviewed without overclaiming public capability? | Part envelope, projected area, density target, material route, tool layout, cavity assumption, 100-240 ton or higher press-fit discussion, and NDA-only equipment evidence when needed. | Lets procurement discuss realistic tooling routes while avoiding public-page promises that may not match the final CAD. |
| Can demolding microcrack and chipped-edge risk be checked before samples ship? | Fragile-feature map, corner radius notes, draft or relief notes, air-gap face protection, ejection witness criteria, visual chip/burr standard, and sample inspection plan. | Targets the failure modes that matter for YASA teeth and thin AFPM stator features before the buyer spends a full tooling budget. |
| Can density uniformity and green strength be tied to the trial sample evidence? | Material route, density target, weight baseline, local-density concern list, green handling route, post-process exposure, sample IDs, and optional magnetic validation scope. | Connects tooling decisions to magnetic performance and mechanical robustness instead of relying on geometry screenshots. |
| Can tool cost, ownership, maintenance, tool life, and revision loops be separated clearly? | Tooling cost line, sample charge, inspection charge, tool type, ownership term, maintenance boundary, storage rule, tool-life assumption, and revision-trigger language. | Gives engineering, quality, and procurement a shared approval basis before prototype, pilot, or production tooling is ordered. |
Any released claim should be tied to the buyer drawing, sample ID, material batch, inspection method, and agreed test condition instead of a generic marketing statement.
| Metric | Typical Range | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Tooling phase | DFM, prototype tool, pilot tool, production tool | Each tooling phase carries different cost, evidence, tool-life, maintenance, revision, and pilot-readiness assumptions. |
| Press fit and tonnage planning | 100-240 ton and higher discussion by projected area, density target, part envelope, and tool layout | Equipment-fit discussion helps screen feasibility, but final press selection must stay tied to buyer CAD and process route. |
| Density uniformity | Material, compaction direction, local geometry, green strength, and post-process route dependent | Density affects permeability, strength, crack risk, magnetic consistency, and repeatability across sample and pilot lots. |
| Demolding and chip risk | Thin teeth, deep slots, corner radius, draft, ejection surface, and handling route dependent | Microcracks and chipped air-gap faces can make a visually acceptable SMC sample unusable in motor assembly. |
| Tool life and maintenance boundary | Prototype learning tool, pilot-intent tool, production tool, maintenance rule, and revision stability dependent | Tool-life language controls long-term cost and prevents a prototype tool from being mistaken for production-ready tooling. |
| Trial release evidence | FAI, CMM/3D scan, CTQ report, density or weight baseline, chip/burr note, optional magnetic data, and sample IDs | A tooling project is only useful when trial parts can be approved by engineering, supplier quality, and procurement from the same evidence package. |
It is the drawing-specific tool and process route used to compact insulated iron powder into an axial flux stator core, segment, YASA tooth, or 3D flux feature. The useful RFQ discussion covers compaction direction, die split, punch access, ejection, density, sample evidence, and commercial tooling terms.
Yes. We can review geometry and suggest manufacturing-facing changes such as radius, draft, relief, machining allowance, or non-critical ejection surfaces while preserving the buyer magnetic intent where possible.
A STEP file, 2D drawing or CTQ list, target material route, density target, fixed features, adjustable features, sample objective, volume assumption, deadline, and NDA status are enough for a structured first review.
No. They are planning references for equipment-fit discussion. Final press route depends on projected area, material, density target, part height, tool layout, cavity count, ejection route, and accepted sample evidence.
Yes. Tool build, trial samples, FAI, density checks, optional magnetic validation, maintenance, storage, and ownership terms should be separated so procurement can approve the scope cleanly.
The practical controls are DFM review for thin features, draft, radii, relief, ejection path, green strength, handling route, air-gap face protection, and visual chip or crack criteria tied to sample inspection.
No. Density depends on geometry, compaction direction, material route, pressing conditions, local features, and post-process route. It should be checked through trial samples with weight, density, or optional magnetic evidence when required.
Tool ownership, storage, maintenance, modification rights, tool-life assumptions, and end-of-project handling should be written into the quote or purchase agreement before the tooling PO.
Changed features should trigger a tooling impact review covering rework, cost, schedule, sample IDs, and repeated CTQ checks before new trial samples or pilot transfer are approved.
Inquiry Email
Attach STEP/DXF/PDF plus frequency, flux density, sample quantity, annual forecast, and destination.
