Engineering Selection Guide · A / M / A-M
Choose a vacuum platform, magnetic platform or combined A-M platform based on the actual workpiece—not material name alone. Magnetic response, effective contact area, flatness, holes or perforations, part geometry and processing load all affect holding performance. Representative sample testing is recommended when workpiece stability is critical.
QintelliM's holding-selection approach evaluates the actual workpiece, effective contact, geometry and process stability rather than assigning A, M or A-M from the material name alone.
Start by checking the actual magnetic response. Then review the usable contact area, holes, flatness and part geometry against the expected processing load. Consider an A-M arrangement when the production mix creates different holding requirements. Confirm uncertain or critical conditions with representative samples.
An A vacuum platform may be evaluated for suitable non-magnetic workpieces, small parts or thin parts. Its suitability depends on effective contact area, holes or perforations, flatness, part geometry and the processing load. A material label or nominal part size does not establish whether the workpiece will remain stable.
For suitable non-magnetic parts, vacuum holding may be evaluated based on geometry, effective contact area, flatness and processing load. This includes reviewing the actual aluminum workpiece rather than assigning a platform from its material name. The selected machine configuration and sample result determine suitability.
An M magnetic platform is intended for suitable ferromagnetic workpieces. Confirm the actual magnetic response, material condition, thickness, shape, effective contact and processing load before selecting it. A magnetic response alone does not confirm that a particular part will be held adequately throughout the process.
For stainless steel, magnetic response varies with the actual material grade and condition and should be verified for the workpiece. Provide the grade and known response when available; the engineering review should resolve uncertainty using the actual parts.
A-M combines magnetic and vacuum holding on the same machine. The actual magnetic and vacuum areas, layout and effective holding arrangement are project-specific and should be confirmed according to the workpiece and application. A-M should not be interpreted as a universal 50/50 split between magnetic and vacuum holding. Holding selection should consider actual magnetic response, effective contact area, flatness, geometry, openings, process load and workpiece stability. It may be considered for projects with different materials, changing workpieces or mixed production requirements.
Confirm the actual magnetic area, vacuum area and working arrangement for the proposed machine and project. The A-M code does not specify usable dimensions or establish that every part will suit either area. Review the workpiece position, contact and process load for the intended arrangement.
For the meaning of the letters, see A, M and A-M configuration codes. This guide focuses on the conditions needed to choose a holding platform.
Vacuum holding does not require a ferromagnetic workpiece; magnetic holding does. Both still require suitable contact, geometry and stability under the intended process. Use the comparison below to prepare a configuration review, rather than treating it as a universal capability table.
| Decision Factor | Vacuum / A | Magnetic / M | Combined / A-M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic response | Not required; geometry and holding contact still need review | A suitable ferromagnetic response is required | Evaluate each workpiece and the relevant holding area |
| Effective contact area | Evaluate the area actually available for vacuum holding | Evaluate actual contact with the magnetic platform | Evaluate contact in both areas for the intended working arrangement |
| Holes / perforations | Can affect holding; review the pattern and available contact | Part geometry and effective contact still matter | Project-dependent; review the parts assigned to each area |
| Flatness and shape | Review flatness, contact and part stability | Review shape, thickness, material response and contact | Review each part type and its proposed position |
| Small / thin parts | May be suitable after geometry and load review | Depends on magnetic response, contact, thickness and load | May be considered for mixed requirements; not an automatic solution |
| Processing load | Confirm holding under the proposed process conditions | Confirm holding under the proposed process conditions | Confirm the intended use of each holding area |
| Selection method | Geometry / contact review and representative testing where needed | Magnetic-response / contact review and representative testing where needed | Project review of material mix, workpiece changes and actual arrangement |
Perforated parts: assess the hole or opening pattern and the effective contact area that remains. Overall length and width do not describe that contact. Perforations can affect vacuum holding, while geometry and actual contact still need review on a magnetic platform. No universal open-area or perforation-ratio limit is stated here.
Small or thin parts: review dimensions, thickness, flatness, shape, available contact and the proposed processing load together. Either a material response or a nominal size on its own is insufficient to confirm stable conveying. If drawings cannot establish suitability, provide representative samples.
Changing workpieces: assess the actual range of parts, including the geometries most likely to challenge contact or stability. An A-M platform may help address mixed requirements, but each intended use still needs project review.
Unknown information can be identified for the engineering team to assess. Do not replace missing magnetic-response, contact or process information with an assumed value.
Representative sample testing is recommended when workpiece stability is critical, contact or flatness is uncertain, parts are small, thin or perforated, or the proposed processing load cannot be assessed reliably from drawings. Evaluate holding during the intended process, not only while a part is resting on the conveyor.
Record the actual workpiece, platform arrangement, process route and settings used. Review conveying stability together with the final part result. A successful sample supports the tested conditions; it does not establish suitability for every material, geometry or setting. Use the Sample Testing Guide to prepare the review.
The RS-Series Deburring & Edge Rounding Machines family includes A vacuum, M magnetic and A-M combined platform options according to the selected configuration. RS is not restricted to A-M; the process route and holding platform are separate configuration decisions.
The existing 800RSR-A-M configuration is one specific R-S-R example with an A-M dual platform. It illustrates an available configuration, not a universal recommendation for all mixed-material workpieces. Confirm the final arrangement against the project requirements.
Send QintelliM your material information, known magnetic response, dimensions, thickness, hole pattern, flatness, photos or drawings and expected process. Include representative samples when holding stability needs verification. The review can identify an appropriate platform and the facts still needed to confirm it.
Need a Machine Recommendation?
QintelliM can recommend a suitable deburring, edge rounding, oxide removal, slag removal, brushing, polishing or dust collection configuration based on your parts and production needs.