If you run a stamping shop, you already know the math is brutal. Raw material – steel, mostly – has long accounted for the lion’s share of a part’s total cost before the first press stroke ever lands. Then came the tariffs.
In June 2025, Section 232 duties on imported steel doubled from 25 to 50 percent. The result? Hot-rolled coil, which was running around $835 a ton in 2024, blew past $1,000 a ton by April 2026. Aluminum coil prices have shot up more than 30 percent in that same time frame.
No one in this business has ever described the margins as generous. But for stampers already threading the needle on every job, that kind of material cost swing doesn’t just squeeze profit margins – it practically eliminates them. Worst case, it threatens to close the doors.
This helps explain why strip layout optimization is getting a second look. For decades, the knowledge needed for this critical, though often overlooked, step has lived in the heads of experienced die designers – tribal knowledge accumulated through years on the shop floor, refined through trial and error, and locked inside retirement-age toolmakers.
Software has been chipping away at that model for years, but adoption has been uneven, and the tooling doesn’t come cheap. Given the current material situation, however, the ROI conversation is getting a lot easier.
For some insight, Stamping Productivity sat down with Massimo Vergerio, mold and die market and product manager at Hexagon Mfg. Intelligence. Vergerio has been helping manufacturers navigate software systems since floppy disks were actually floppy and die layout meant a drawing board and a sharp pencil. Here’s his input on strip layout optimization and other areas of stamping.
STP: Steel costs are up 20 percent or more year over year. Is this changing how stampers think about strip layout? Is it getting more attention as a cost lever than it was two or three years ago?
Vergerio: Absolutely. When material costs rise that quickly, every percentage point of utilization suddenly matters much more. A few years ago, manufacturers might have focused primarily on labor efficiency, machine uptime or tooling costs. Today, many are taking a fresh look at strip layout because material often represents the highest variable cost in a stamping operation.
Strip layout is no longer viewed as a downstream die design exercise. More manufacturers are evaluating material efficiency much earlier in the quoting process because even small improvements in yield can translate into significant savings over the life of a program.
For a “typical” stamped part, what percentage of its cost is raw material? How does that shift the ROI calculation for investing in better layout tools or processes?
Raw material typically accounts for 40 to 70 percent-plus of a stamped part’s total cost, depending on the application, material type and production volume. When steel prices increase by 20 percent or more, that portion of the cost structure becomes even more significant. The ROI calculation changes quickly in that environment.
Several years ago, a five percent improvement in material utilization might not have justified a new software investment. Today, that same improvement can generate substantial annual savings, particularly for high-volume programs. Better strip layout, simulation and process planning tools help manufacturers identify those opportunities before a die is ever built.
Walk me through what the term “optimal strip layout” actually means. What elements are a trade off when trying to maximize yield?
The highest material utilization isn’t always the best strip layout. An optimal layout balances material efficiency with manufacturability, tooling complexity, production speed and part quality. Engineers are constantly weighing competing priorities. They want to minimize scrap, but they also need sufficient material for carrier strips, proper part progression through the die, balanced forming forces and reliable scrap removal.
A layout that looks perfect from a nesting standpoint may create downstream issues in production. Ultimately, the goal is to find the best overall manufacturing solution, not simply the tightest packing arrangement.
How much material utilization difference do you typically see between a strip layout designed manually with conventional thinking versus one optimized with modern software? What’s a realistic improvement range?
Every part is different, but it’s common to see material utilization improvements in the 5 to 15 percent range when manufacturers move from conventional approaches to more advanced optimization methods. For particularly challenging geometries, gains can sometimes be even higher.
Those numbers may sound small, but when material represents the majority of part cost and production volumes reach hundreds of thousands or millions of parts, even a few percentage points can have a significant financial impact. Modern software like Hexagon’s Visi allows engineers to evaluate far more strip layout options than would be practical manually, helping uncover efficiencies that might otherwise be missed.
What geometric characteristics of a part make it particularly hard to optimize for material utilization? What techniques address them?
Irregular shapes, highly asymmetric parts, long narrow geometries and parts with complex perimeters are often the most difficult to optimize. These designs naturally create gaps and unused areas that are difficult to eliminate. In those situations, engineers may explore alternative orientations, mirrored layouts, multi-out configurations or different progression strategies. Advanced optimization software helps evaluate hundreds or thousands of potential arrangements quickly, allowing teams to find opportunities that aren’t immediately obvious through manual analysis.
How does blank orientation relative to grain direction interact with strip layout optimization? And with that, when does grain direction force you to accept worse yield?
Grain direction is one of the most common real-world constraints that limits pure nesting efficiency. The rolling process creates directional properties in sheet metal, and certain forming operations perform better when bends occur in a specific orientation relative to the grain. In those cases, manufacturers may intentionally sacrifice some material utilization to improve formability, reduce cracking risk or meet part performance requirements.
It’s a good example of why optimal strip layout isn’t simply about packing parts as tightly as possible. Ultimately, quality and manufacturability take priority over a few additional percentage points of yield.
How have AI and machine learning begun to influence strip layout recommendations? Is software going beyond geometry-only decisions to suggest layouts a human wouldn’t have found?
The industry is still in the early stages, but AI and machine learning are beginning to influence how manufacturers evaluate layouts and forming processes. Historically, optimization focused largely on geometry. The next generation of tooling, however, will increasingly incorporate manufacturing intelligence, as well.
Over time, we expect software to evaluate not just material utilization, but also forming behavior, springback, thinning, cracking risk, press performance and historical production outcomes. That could allow systems to identify solutions that may not be intuitive to an engineer looking at geometry alone.
At what stage of the quoting and die design process should material utilization be locked in? What happens when it’s an afterthought?
The earlier, the better. Material utilization should be evaluated during quoting and initial process planning, not after tooling decisions have already been made. If major layout changes occur late in the process, they can affect die design, station count, tooling cost, production rates and even customer pricing commitments. That’s why many manufacturers are investing in tools that allow them to develop and validate strip concepts much earlier, giving them greater confidence in their cost estimates and manufacturing plans.
Are shops integrating strip layout tools with their ERP or cost-estimating systems so that material yield shows up during the quoting process in real time?
Increasingly, yes. Manufacturers are looking to connect engineering data directly to estimating and business systems so that material utilization, scrap rates and production assumptions flow automatically into quoting and costing. That integration helps reduce manual calculations and improves consistency between engineering and finance teams. As margins become tighter and material costs become more volatile, having accurate real-time cost visibility becomes increasingly valuable.
Outside of strip layout, where else in the stamping process is material being left on the table?
In addition to strip layout, material savings opportunities also exist in coil width selection, blank design, gauge optimization, scrap handling strategies and even product design decisions made upstream. Some manufacturers are also using simulation earlier in the process to identify opportunities to reduce material usage without compromising part performance. In many cases, the biggest gains come from evaluating the entire manufacturing workflow rather than focusing on a single operation.
We’ve covered a lot of ground but is there anything we missed?
One area that’s becoming increasingly important is resilience. Material optimization isn’t just about reducing scrap anymore. It’s also about managing supply chain uncertainty and protecting margins in a volatile market. Manufacturers are paying closer attention to material availability, coil size standardization, inventory strategies and the ability to adapt quickly when market conditions change. The companies that combine efficient material utilization with strong process planning and simulation capabilities will be in the best position to remain competitive when costs fluctuate.
Modern die design and simulation platforms such as Visi help support that effort by allowing manufacturers to evaluate material usage, tooling strategies and manufacturability much earlier in the development process. The broader trend, however, is that the industry is moving away from trial and error and toward more data-driven decision making.
Sustainability is also becoming an increasingly important driver alongside cost reduction. Every pound of scrap eliminated reduces not only material spend but also the energy, emissions and resources associated with producing that material in the first place. As manufacturers face growing pressure to improve sustainability metrics, material utilization is becoming an economic and environmental objective.
Have you subscribed to Stamping Productivity? If not, it’s free, so sign up and get notified when new issues publish.
