“Laser cutting is not a goal, it’s a matter of utility”

Norbert Seifermann, founder and board member of SIMTEK Precision Tools GmbH in Mössingen, shares his insights on the production, advantages, and application possibilities of laser-cut clamp geometries.

Since Swabian tool manufacturer SIMTEK first presented laser-cut edge geometries for carbide tools at AMB 2024, demand has grown considerably. Many customers now order laser-cut geometries for their custom tools. The benefits are tangible: optimized chip control and improved cutting parameters deliver greater process reliability during machining. In many cases, multiple machining steps can be integrated into a single geometry, eliminating the need for additional tools altogether. But when does the additional design effort actually pay off? We explored this question with Norbert Seifermann, board member of SIMTEK AG.

Mr. Seifermann, laser-cut edge geometries have now firmly established themselves at SIMTEK. What drove this development?

The conventional approach was based on removing material from specific locations in other words, material was selectively ground away. With laser cutting, the principle is entirely different: we design a negative model that precisely defines what is to be removed. This new way of thinking represented a genuine paradigm shift for us and significantly transformed our CAD processes. Where two data sets were once sufficient, we now need at least four for comparable tools because the laser-cut negative has become an independent design component in its own right.

What does that mean for your designers?

First and foremost: a considerable additional workload  and a completely new way of approaching the task. Especially in the early stages, it was a combination of experience, intuition, and intensive trial and error. We frequently laser-cut two or three variants and tested them in parallel to determine which geometry performed best for a given application. By now, we’ve built up a level of expertise comparable to what we have in grinding.

Are there typical application areas where laser cutting is particularly worthwhile?

In roughly ninety percent of the cases where customers request laser geometries, chip control is the central issue. The goal is either to prevent sensitive surfaces from being scratched or to eliminate process interruptions caused by clogged chips. A second key focus is process optimization. One example involved machining lead-free copper alloys at a feed rate of 0.15 mm. In that case, preventing chips from adhering to the workpiece was critical. A circumferentially laser-machined geometry solved the problem  and the customer gained an additional tool saving in the process.

What makes laser cutting so much more effective than grinding in these situations?

With laser cutting, we can produce complex free-form geometries that would be entirely unachievable through grinding. And perhaps the most significant difference: the rake angle remains constant along the entire cutting edge, regardless of whether a chip breaker is present or not. This reduces vibration, improves surface quality, and makes the tool sharper overall. To put it in concrete terms: the customer mentioned earlier previously needed two separate tools for two cuts. Today, one tool handles both. That saves not only setup time but ultimately energy consumption as well.

How do you build and distribute this knowledge within your team?

Through close communication and structured knowledge transfer. We introduced weekly internal meetings where new findings are shared across the team. This allows us to build up expertise systematically and make it accessible to everyone. Many geometry variants are now so well standardized that decisions are made without escalating to me, which is a clear sign of how confidently and competently our designers handle the subject.

Are there limitations to laser cutting?

Absolutely. We don’t apply laser cutting indiscriminately. If a ground geometry is working reliably at a customer’s site, there are no chip control issues, and the process runs stably, we see no reason to change. We have even received specific requests for laser geometries where our analysis concluded that the best solution for that particular application was actually a conventional, rounded chip-guiding chamfer. Why introduce laser cutting when what’s already in place is working optimally?

And when laser cutting is the right choice, what needs to be considered?

Above all: data. We need material specifications, cutting parameters, and target dimensions. Unfortunately, many customers are reluctant to provide this information — sometimes due to time constraints, sometimes simply out of habit. We regularly receive requests for custom tools accompanied by just two or three data sets, with the expectation that we deliver a perfect solution. Of course, we can simulate a great deal. But we cannot fully replicate every machine, every coolant, and every cutting condition. Without reliable baseline data, a degree of uncertainty always remains.

Looking ahead: what comes next?

We intend to advance the technology decisively, both in the standard product range and in terms of process-integrated solutions. The objective stays the same: to offer customers not just a functioning tool, but one that improves their entire process — whether through higher cutting parameters, reduced rework, or reliable chip management. Laser cutting is not an end in itself for us; it is a tool we deploy when it delivers genuine technical and economic value.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Seifermann!

This laser geometry was developed in collaboration with a customer and used as a proprietary tool for a year and a half. The geometry was so successful that SIMTEK included it in its standard product range.

Screw turning produces chips that can be removed from the machining area under controlled conditions, with the same cutting values ​​as a laser-cut edge geometry.

When turning screws with conventional DX inserts, users previously had to deal with mixed chips or adjust cutting values, which often led to longer machining times.

Interview conducted by Ralf M. Haassengier, PRX Communications Agency GmbH