DITAIAUTOMOTIVE · PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Parts that stay located.
Room to lift them out.
Developing four automotive tray designs meant balancing component fit, removal space and stacking. We worked from the customer’s layouts, marked the sample observations and carried those details into local tooling revisions.
The project’s aluminium tool. The sample reviews below show why individual pocket features needed attention.
Automotive component handling
Four tray designs, tooling and sample review
Location · removal · stacking
The tray had to work with the equipment.
The customer needed parts to remain located without becoming difficult to remove. The brief also called for stacking and features that the automated equipment could recognise.
Those requirements could not be resolved independently. Tightening a pocket could restrict removal; changing a corner could affect stacking. Our design work considered the component, its handling path and the thermoforming geometry together.
View all four tray layouts · 4 project drawings
Each layout has a different component arrangement. The original drawings retain their model-identification marks; the descriptions below explain the features in English.
Layout A — compact component pockets
The pockets and notch positions define this tray layout.
Layout B — elongated component pockets
The long pockets follow the component envelope and its support requirements.
Layout C — an alternative pocket arrangement
A different component layout requires its own locating geometry.
Layout D — central locating features
The drawing shows the central arrangement and model-identification features.
Make the handling features manufacturable.
We developed the supplied layouts into thermoforming designs. Model-identification notches, moulded direction arrows and trimming references had to remain consistent with the equipment brief.
The handle needed a second kind of review: how it would be gripped in use, and how the formed tray would release from its tool. The design included sliding tooling for demoulding. This is where the handling requirement met the practical work of making the part.
Related engineering: thermoforming tooling and release.
Open the tooling and handling details · 4 images
Aluminium tooling
The second tool records a different component-pocket layout.
Trim and identification references
The marked cut features correspond to the equipment-identification requirements.
Handle and sliding-tool arrangement
The review connects the gripping feature with the tooling needed for release.
Moulded direction arrows
Orientation features were included alongside the model-identification notches.
Stay with the detail, not just the drawing.
With components placed in the samples, the team recorded where they moved and which local surfaces could be adjusted. The notes describe approximately 0.5–2 mm of play and pieces of 1 mm sheet used as gap-checking aids—not a final tolerance specification.
We linked the marked photographs to selected areas on the tool drawings. That made the discussion specific: where was the unwanted movement, what could be changed locally, and what space still had to remain for removal?
The aim was to address the fit without making unnecessary changes elsewhere in the tooling.
From an observation to a tooling decision.
The photographs and corresponding drawings below show how the sample review was carried into local revisions. Two groups of full-length workshop videos keep the original and follow-up checks available for a closer look.
In the annotated images, the arrows and highlighted surfaces identify areas selected for review. Any machining dimensions belong to those local proposals; they are not finished-part tolerances.
Compact-component tray
What to look for: the marked locating surfaces on the sample and their matching positions on the tool drawing.
Locate the contact areas on the sample
The red arrows identify local pocket surfaces selected for adjustment.
Carry those locations into the tool review
The highlighted tool features connect the sample observations to the proposed local machining.
Watch the compact-tray checks · 2 full videos · 22s / 38s
Watch how the components sit in their pockets and how they are handled during the checks. These clips document manual sample review; they are not a controlled measurement of before-and-after performance.
Compact tray: initial fit review
22 seconds. Manual review with the components in place.
Compact tray: follow-up fit review
38 seconds. Manual handling and removal checks on the follow-up sample.
Long-component tray
What to look for: the selected locating surfaces, considered alongside the space needed to remove the full component.
Mark the areas needing attention
The sample image records selected contact areas. Identifying labels and background markings have been concealed.
Review a local change in the complete layout
The marked drawing shows the corresponding tooling locations, rather than an across-the-board change to every pocket.
Watch the long-tray checks · 2 full videos · 39s / 38s
Look at the handling of the long components and the inspection of tray features. Labels have been masked where needed; the full sequence and original playback speed are retained.
Long tray: initial fit review
39 seconds. Components in place, with manual fit and corner checks.
Long tray: follow-up fit review
38 seconds. Manual removal and inspection of the revised tray features.
Does a part move—or catch—inside your tray?
A marked photo and a short handling video can make the issue easier to discuss than a drawing alone.
Keep stacking in view when changing a corner.
On one tray, eight corners were noticeably thin and could be depressed by hand. The review identified stepped geometry with very little draft in those areas.
The proposed revision replaced abrupt details with bevelled transitions to ease local stretching. But forming was only part of the decision: the tray still needed the geometry required for stacking.
Eight corners selected for review
The red outlines locate the thin corner areas discussed in the sample review.
Reconsider the transitions
The corresponding drawing identifies the corner regions proposed for a geometry change.
See the narrow, deep feature · 2 further images
A separate deep, narrow region also needed attention. The proposed sloping transition addressed the local geometry while preserving the component space. The available record does not quantify the resulting wall thickness.
Locate the deep region on the formed tray
The arrows identify the feature that required further forming review.
Review the proposed sloping transition
The drawing shows the region selected for adjustment while retaining the component envelope.
More on these design decisions: thermoforming design and development guidance.
What this project shows.
The work did not stop at translating a layout into a tool. We followed the sample observations into particular contact surfaces and corner details, then kept the follow-up checks connected to those changes.
That is the practical value of working through a project together: a fit concern becomes a location to review, a proposed adjustment and a question for the next sample—not just a general request to “make it better”.
Project stage & evidence
This case documents design, aluminium tooling and sample-review work. Final customer acceptance and production-line validation are not reported here. Manual checks do not establish robot cycle performance, service life or a quantified improvement in wall thickness.
All 17 project images and four full-length videos are retained on this page. Open the labelled sections to explore the complete record. Identifying labels are masked and video audio is removed for confidentiality.
Show us how your parts need to be handled.
Send the component layout, explain how the parts are loaded and removed, and point out any movement or catching. Include stacking requirements if they affect the design.
We can discuss the locating features and forming constraints with your team, then identify what the next sample needs to demonstrate. A drawing, marked photo or short handling video is a useful starting point.
Have a Thermoforming Project?
Send a drawing or sample for a free DFM review, with flexible quantities from prototype to production. Initial reply within 8 working hours. Preliminary DFM normally within 24–48 hours after sufficient project information is received. Formal quotation timing depends on project complexity.
