Injection Molding Troubleshooter

Eliminate Surface Defects on Molded Parts

Print This Article

Learn More
Visible defects on the surface of a molded part appear
as dull, glossy, or hazy areas, or as a rippled surface, Visit the
called orange peel. Common points of occurrence Injection Molding
include near the sprue or behind sharp edges in areas Zone
away from the sprue. The mold and the molding process
are the best places to seek out and identify the causes
of these effects.

Dull areas on the part

Dull concentric rings can appear around the sprue
like a faint halo. This is most likely to occur when
the part is made from a high-viscosity, poorly
flowing material such as PC, PMMA, or ABS. With
this type of polymer there is the risk of the cooled
surface layer near the gate being displaced by the
flow of resin in the core of the part, leaving a visible
defect.
Dull halos around the sprue
and downstream of sharp
It is frequently assumed that the defect occurs edges occur when initial
during the packing and holding-pressure phase of injection speed is too high,
the process. Yet in fact, dull areas near the sprue which causes displacement of
invariably occur at the beginning of the filling cycle. cooled surface material.
Our experiments have traced the actual cause of the Gradually increasing fill
skin-layer displacement, which can be attributed to speed with a stepped
injection speed—more specifically, the flow-front injection profile can fix the
velocity. problem.

Even when injection speed into the mold is constant, flow velocity changes. Flow
velocity is very high in the area of the gate as it enters the mold, but slows down
as the flow front extends away from the gate and into the cavity on a widening
circle. The change in flow-front velocity can bring about the surface defects.

One way to reduce the changes in speed of the flow front is to tailor the injection-
speed profile. In order to obtain a slow flow-front velocity near the sprue, it is
necessary to inject in several steps, increasing gradually from a relatively low
speed to ones that are faster and faster. The aim is to obtain a flow-front velocity
that is uniform throughout the whole filling phase.

Low melt temperature is another source of a dull surface on the part. Increasing
the barrel temperature and raising the screw backpressure can help reduce the
probability of surface defects. Too low a temperature of the mold wall can also be a
reason, so increasing the mold temperature is another possible solution to surface
defects.

There are also design-related issues that can generate a dull area near the sprue. A
sharp transition between the gate and part can be remedied by providing a small
radius between the gate and the part. Also, take a closer look at gate position and
diameter and confirm that they are correct for the application.

Dull areas occur not only near the sprue but are also frequently found downstream
of sharp edges in the molded part. In such a case, the surface finish up to the
sharp edge is typically very good, while behind it the surface is dull and rough.
Here again, too high an injection speed or flow velocity can cause the cooled
surface layer to be displaced by melt flowing underneath.

A stepped or graduated injection speed profile is again recommended. The best

approach is to allow flow to speed up only after the flow front has passed the sharp
edge.

A design-related source of trouble involves sharp transitions at edges in the

molding away from the sprue area. A smoother, radiused transition in those areas
is the answer.

Fixing gloss variations

Differences in gloss are most conspicuous on
textured surfaces. Irregular gloss may appear on the
molded part even though the mold has a uniform
surface texture. The problem is poor replication of
the mold surface in some areas of the part.

Pressure on the injected melt decreases with

increasing distance from the gate. If the part is not
Glossy surfaces appear on
fully packed at the point farthest from the gate,
this automotive part due to
where the pressure is lowest, the mold surface
poor packing and poor mold
texture will not be reproduced exactly, resulting in a
surface replication. Higher
glossy surface. Hence, unwanted gloss is least likely
melt or mold temperature,
in the areas where cavity pressure is strongest—
higher holding pressure, or
from the gate to about half way along the flow path.
longer hold time could help.

To fix this situation, consider raising the melt or mold temperature or the holding
pressure. Extending the holding-pressure time also may increase the chances for
accurate mold-surface replication.

Part design can also contribute to gloss variations. For example, large changes in
wall thickness can cause melt-flow irregularities and difficulties in mold-surface
replication. Designing more uniform wall sections can alleviate this. Areas of
excessive wall thickness or oversized ribs can also increase the risk of glossy
marks. Another source is insufficient venting at the flow line.
Orange peel’s origin
“Orange peel” or a rippled surface defect typically occurs at the end of the flow
path in thick-walled parts molded of high-viscosity materials. During injection at
low velocity, solidification occurs on the surface too quickly. The high resistance to
flow produces uneven frontal flow, and the solidified outer layer will not fully
contact the cavity wall. The result is ripples. These ripples will freeze and holding
pressure will no longer be able to smooth them out. The solution is to raise the
melt temperature and increase the injection speed.

Now retired, Martin Bichler is a former long-time employee of Demag Plastics

Group in Schwaig, Germany. Bichler was formerly head of application engineering
and processing development. Since his retirement, he continues to work closely
with Demag as an application advisor and symposium lecturer. He focuses on the
basic aspects of injection molding and has published a book in English, Guide to
Flawless Injection Moldings. For questions or comments on this article, contact Bob
Lewis at Demag in Strongsville, Ohio. Tel: (440) 876-8960,or e-mail
applicationsgroup@dpg.com.

Heat/Cool Molding

Thermal Cycling of Injection Molds Boosts Surface

Quality

Print This Article

By Andy May, SABIC Innovative Plastics

Learn More

Visit the
In the injection molding process, tool temperature is an important
Injection Molding Zone
factor in achieving high-quality parts. It is generally believed that
higher tool temperature often results in better surface quality.
Heat/cool molding technology is an approach to thermally cycling
the mold surface temperature within the injection molding cycle. Company Info
This requires heating the mold surface above the material’s glass-
transition temperature (Tg) prior to injection, and then rapidly SABIC Innovative
cooling the tool to solidify the molded part prior to ejection. Plastics,Pittsfield, MA

Fast4M Tooling LLC,

The heat/cool molding
Troy, MI
process significantly
improves the surface
KraussMaffei Corp., Florence,
appearance of injection
KY
molded parts. It is also
Heat/cool molding process significantly possible to reduce system costs by eliminating secondary
improves the surface appearance of operations such as primers and sanding to hide surface
injection molded parts like these defects. In some cases, painting or powder coating can
structural test parts made of 20% be eliminated altogether. Heat/cool molding also enables
glass-filled Verton PC/ABS. the use of glass-reinforced structural materials in
applications where a high-gloss finish is important. Other benefits of this approach include
reduction of molded-in stress, reduction or elimination of jetting and visible weld lines, and
increased resin flow lengths to produce thinwall parts.
SABIC Innovative Plastics began working on this technology in
Japan several years ago. The first application was an automotive
roof-rack rail support bracket that was converted from metal.
When an 11% glass-filled Xenoy 1760 PC/PBT resin was trialed,
surface aesthetics were not acceptable due to jetting and obvious
weld lines. In addition, the part surface was very rough due to the
glass fibers, and it required sanding prior to painting. Heat/cool
technology eliminated these surface defects and the need for
sanding. For SABIC’s tests, mold
heating and cooling were
With materials such as polycarbonate and blends like PC/ABS and regulated with an alternating
PC/PBT, the heat/cool process is being used successfully to temperature-control system
minimize surface-appearance issues in applications such as TV from Germany’s Single
bezels, light-guide plates, car audio components, and notebook PC Temperiertechnik. It switches
covers. from super-heated water at
up to 400 F to cold water.

HOW IT WORKS
Conventional injection molding machinery can be used for heat/cool processing. However, a
special auxiliary system is required for rapidly heating and cooling the mold surface. Both
superheated water and steam are being used today. Some systems require an external boiler to
generate steam, while others generate steam within the control unit itself. In the Pacific region,
SABIC uses steam at its development centers. At the Polymer Processing Development Center
(PPDC) in Pittsfield, Mass., the company is using a superheated water system from Germany’s
Single Temperiertechnik (sold here by KraussMaffei) that can deliver water at 200 C (400 F).

For efficient process control, the mold must be equipped with thermocouples that are close to the
molding surface to monitor temperature. The injection mold, the molding machine, and the
heat/cool controller must be integrated to achieve a stable process. During the development of
this process at SABIC, we built our own control unit to integrate each element.

At the outset of the molding cycle,

steam or superheated water is
circulated in the tool to heat the
mold surfaces to a temperature 10°
to 30° C above the Tg of the resin.
Once this temperature is achieved,
the injection machine is given a
signal to inject plastic into the
cavity. After the cavity is filled and
the injection phase completed, cold
water is circulated in the tool to
quickly solidify the plastic and cool
it sufficiently for ejection. A valve
station is used to switch from steam
or superheated water to cold water
(and vice versa). After the part has
cooled, the mold opens and the part
An overview of the heat/cool process shows the temperature is ejected, and the system switches
cycle relative to the injection cycle. Injection begins at the back to the mold-heating phase.
“permission temperature.”
FOCUS ON TOOL DESIGN
The effect of heat/cool technology on overall cycle time depends on the material being processed
and, more importantly, on the design and construction of the tool. The time required to heat and
cool the tool is a function of the steel’s mass, so it is best to minimize the amount of steel to be
thermally cycled. Cavities and cores should be inserted rather than cut into the mold plates to
help minimize mass. To reduce heat loss and improve efficiency, these inserts should be insulated
from the cavity and core retainer plates using air gaps and insulation material whenever possible.

Besides reducing the amount of steel mass that must alternate from hot to cold, consideration
should be given to the use of metals such as beryllium-copper or other highly conductive alloys to
reduce the time
required to heat
and cool the mold
surfaces. Also,
placing water
lines close to the
molding surfaces
will help speed up
response time.
Many times,
however, the part
geometry will not
allow this.
Heat/cool technique (right) provides better surface appearance by eliminating
Conformal
flow marks and silver streaks in auto center consoles made of PC/ABS.
cooling, where
the pattern of water lines mirrors the part surface geometry, is an approach that is well suited to
this process.

Several different technologies are used to achieve conformal cooling, such as laser sintering and
direct metal deposition. For a test mold, SABIC worked with Fast4M Tooling, which developed a
laminate toolmaking process called Fast-Form. This technology builds the tool from a stack of thin
sheets of steel, individually laser-cut and bonded with copper. This method easily incorporates
conformal and “flood” cooling channels, as well as extensive venting, at low cost.

THE BENEFITS
Heat/cool technology can significantly enhance the aesthetics of injection molded parts. The
improvement is more dramatic for parts made of amorphous resins such as PC and blends like
PC/ABS and PC/PBT. When the mold surface temperature exceeds the Tg of an amorphous resin,
the material does not form a skin during the injection phase and the polymer is free to move. As a
result, it is not “frozen” when it touches the mold surface, unlike conventional molding. This
allows for improved surface replication of the tool surface and higher gloss.

For filled materials, a thin layer of polymer on the outside surface encapsulates the filler, thereby
increasing gloss and reducing surface roughness. Studies have shown gloss improvement of 50%
to 90%. With glass-filled materials, an improvement of 70% in Rmax—a measure of surface
roughness—has been achieved. The improvement was greater than 20% for unfilled materials.
Heat/cool injection molding has a positive influence
on the depth and visibility of weld lines. One test
mold was used to mold three different materials
using heat/cool and conventional molding techniques.
Using the conventional method, weld-line depths on
the surface ranged from 6 to 13 microns. On the
heat/cool molded parts, the weld lines were
completely invisible and no depth could be
measured. This significant improvement has
eliminated painting operations on some applications.

Molded-in stress can cause unwanted warpage and,

in some cases, a shorter part lifetime. On a
conventionally molded test part, the molded-in
stresses were high. Applying a solvent that is a
known stress-cracking agent—carbon tetrachloride—
caused cracks in the part. Parts molded with
heat/cool had lower molded-in stress and applying Schematic of a water- temperature
the solvent did not result in cracks. Heat/cool controller that can both heat and cool an
molding can thus potentially eliminate the need to injection mold within a single cycle.
anneal parts before use. (Source: Single Temperiertechnik)

There are many benefits in part performance and appearance that can be achieved with heat/cool
process technology. Although there are additional costs associated with the technology, it can be
cost-effective from an overall systems standpoint, particularly if it can eliminate expensive
secondary operations.

About The Author

Andy May is a project engineer at SABIC Innovative Plastics’ Polymer Processing Development
Center in Pittsfield, Mass. He has worked extensively the last 20 years on processing, design, part
performance, and tooling. He welcomes questions at andy.may@sabic-ip.com.

Home | Log-In | E-Mail

CompanyR.F.Q.AssemblyCustomTypesTheoryReps
search
 USA Plastics.com Hom
Munson Mfg., Inc.

Home Order Services Feedback News Contact

Munson Products
I-See Bones Picnic Wheels Made To Hunt Products Wi-Fi Antennas
Miscellaneous Antennas Custom Products
Other Products
Cable Assembly R.F. Connectors Electrical Assembly Mechanical
Assembly Injection Molding Website Links

All Of Our Assembly, Antenna and Injection Molded Products are

Proudly Designed and Made In The U.S.A.
Injection molding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please wikify this article or section.

Help improve this article by adding relevant internal links. (March 2008)
Injection molding (British: moulding) is a manufacturing process for producing parts
from both thermoplastic and thermosetting plastic materials. Molten plastic is injected at
high pressure into a mold, which is the inverse of the product's shape. After a product is
designed, usually by an industrial designer or an engineer, molds are made by a
moldmaker (or toolmaker) from metal, usually either steel or aluminium, and precision-
machined to form the features of the desired part. Injection molding is widely used for
manufacturing a variety of parts, from the smallest component to entire body panels of
cars. Injection molding is the most common method of production, with some commonly
made items including bottle caps and outdoor furniture. Injection molding typically is
capable of tolerances equivalent to an IT Grade of about 9–14.

Standard two plates tooling – core and cavity are inserts in a mold base – "Family mold"
of 5 different parts

The most commonly used thermoplastic materials are polystyrene (low cost, lacking the
strength and longevity of other materials), ABS or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (a ter-
polymer or mixture of compounds used for everything from Lego parts to electronics
housings), polyamide (chemically resistant, heat resistant, tough and flexible – used for
combs), polypropylene (tough and flexible – used for containers), polyethylene, and
polyvinyl chloride or PVC (more common in extrusions as used for pipes, window
frames, or as the insulation on wiring where it is rendered flexible by the inclusion of a
high proportion of plasticiser). Plastics reinforced with short fibres can also be injection
molded.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Equipment
• 1.1 Mold
• 1.2 Design
• 1.3 Machining
• 1.4 Cost
 2 Injection process
• 2.1 Injection molding cycle
• 2.2 Molding trial
• 2.3 Molding defects
 3 History
 4 See also
 5 Notes
 6 References

 7 External links // if (window.showTocToggle) { var

tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //
[edit] Equipment
Paper clip mold opened in molding machine; the nozzle is visible at right
Main article: Injection molding machine

Injection molding machines, also known as presses, hold the molds in which the
components are shaped. Presses are rated by tonnage, which expresses the amount of
clamping force that the machine can exert. This force keeps the mold closed during the
injection process. Tonnage can vary from less than 5 tons to 6000 tons, with the higher
figures used in comparatively few manufacturing operations. The required force is
determined by the material used and the size of the part, larger parts require higher
clamping force.

[edit] Mold

Mold (Tool and/or Mold) is the common term used to describe the production tooling
used to produce plastic parts in molding.

Traditionally, molds have been expensive to manufacture. They were usually only used
in mass production where thousands of parts were being produced. Molds are typically
constructed from hardened steel, pre-hardened steel, aluminium, and/or beryllium-
copper alloy. The choice of material to build a mold from is primarily one of economics,
steel molds generally cost more to construct, but their longer lifespan will offset the
higher initial cost over a higher number of parts made before wearing out. Pre-hardened
steel molds are less wear resistant and are used for lower volume requirements or
larger components. The steel hardness is typically 38-45 on the Rockwell-C scale.
Hardened steel molds are heat treated after machining. These are by far the superior in
terms of wear resistance and lifespan. Typical hardness ranges between 50 and 60
Rockwell-C (HRC). Aluminium molds can cost substantially less, and when designed
and machined with modern computerized equipment, can be economical for molding
tens or even hundreds of thousands of parts. Beryllium copper is used in areas of the
mold which require fast heat removal or areas that see the most shear heat generated.
The molds can be manufactured by either CNC machining or by using Electrical
Discharge Machining processes

[edit] Design

Molds separate into two sides at a parting line, the A side, and the B side, to permit the
part to be extracted. Plastic resin enters the mold through a sprue in the A plate,
branches out between the two sides through channels called runners, and enters each
part cavity through one or more specialized gates. Inside each cavity, the resin flows
around protrusions (called cores) and conforms to the cavity geometry to form the
desired part. The amount of resin required to fill the sprue, runner and cavities of a mold
is a shot. When a core shuts off against an opposing mold cavity or core, a hole results
in the part. Air in the cavities when the mold closes escapes through very slight gaps
between the plates and pins, into shallow plenums called vents. To permit removal of
the part, its features must not overhang one another in the direction that the mold
opens, unless parts of the mold are designed to move from between such overhangs
when the mold opens (utilizing components called Lifters). Sides of the part that appear
parallel with the direction of draw (the direction in which the core and cavity separate
from each other) are typically angled slightly with (draft) to ease release of the part from
the mold, and examination of most plastic household objects will reveal this. Parts with
bucket-like features tend to shrink onto the cores that form them while cooling, and cling
to those cores when the cavity is pulled away. The mold is usually designed so that the
molded part reliably remains on the ejector (B) side of the mold when it opens, and
draws the runner and the sprue out of the (A) side along with the parts. The part then
falls freely when ejected from the (B) side. Tunnel gates tunnel sharply below the
parting surface of the B side at the tip of each runner so that the gate is sheared off of
the part when both are ejected. Ejector pins are the most popular method for removing
the part from the B side core(s), but air ejection, and stripper plates can also be used
depending on the application. Most ejector plates are found on the moving half of the
tool, but they can be placed on the fixed half if spring loaded. For thermoplastics,
coolant, usually water with corrosion inhibitors, circulates through passageways bored
through the main plates on both sides of the mold to enable temperature control and
rapid part solidification.

To ease maintenance and venting, cavities and cores are divided into pieces, called
inserts, and subassemblies, also called inserts, blocks, or chase blocks. By substituting
interchangeable inserts, one mold may make several variations of the same part.

More complex parts are formed using more complex molds. These may have sections
called slides, that move into a cavity perpendicular to the draw direction, to form
overhanging part features. Slides are then withdrawn to allow the part to be released
when the mold opens. Slides are typically guided and retained between rails called gibs,
and are moved when the mold opens and closes by angled rods called horn pins and
locked in place by locking blocks, both of which move cross the mold from the opposite
side.

Some molds allow previously molded parts to be reinserted to allow a new plastic layer
to form around the first part. This is often referred to as overmolding. This system can
allow for production of one-piece tires and wheels.

2-shot or multi shot molds are designed to "overmold" within a single molding cycle and
must be processed on specialized injection molding machines with two or more injection
units. This can be achieved by having pairs of identical cores and pairs of different
cavities within the mold. After injection of the first material, the component is rotated on
the core from the one cavity to another. The second cavity differs from the first in that
the detail for the second material is included. The second material is then injected into
the additional cavity detail before the completed part is ejected from the mold. Common
applications include "soft-grip" toothbrushes and freelander grab handles.

The core and cavity, along with injection and cooling hoses form the mold tool. While
large tools are very heavy weighing hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds,
they usually require the use of a forklift or overhead crane, they can be hoisted into
molding machines for production and removed when molding is complete or the tool
needs repairing.

A mold can produce several copies of the same parts in a single "shot". The number of
"impressions" in the mold of that part is often incorrectly referred to as cavitation. A tool
with one impression will often be called a single cavity (impression) tool. A mold with 2
or more cavities of the same parts will likely be referred to as multiple cavity tooling.
Some extremely high production volume molds (like those for bottle caps) can have
over 128 cavities.

In some cases multiple cavity tooling will mold a series of different parts in the same
tool. Some toolmakers call these molds family molds as all the parts are not the same
but often part of a family of parts (to be used in the same product for example).

[edit] Machining

Molds are built through two main methods: standard machining and EDM. Standard
Machining, in its conventional form, has historically been the method of building
injection molds. With technological development, CNC machining became the
predominant means of making more complex molds with more accurate mold details in
less time than traditional methods.

The electrical discharge machining (EDM) or spark erosion process has become widely
used in mold making. As well as allowing the formation of shapes which are difficult to
machine, the process allows pre-hardened molds to be shaped so that no heat
treatment is required. Changes to a hardened mold by conventional drilling and milling
normally require annealing to soften the steel, followed by heat treatment to harden it
again. EDM is a simple process in which a shaped electrode, usually made of copper or
graphite, is very slowly lowered onto the mold surface (over a period of many hours),
which is immersed in paraffin oil. A voltage applied between tool and mold causes spark
erosion of the mold surface in the inverse shape of the electrode.

[edit] Cost

The cost of manufacturing molds depends on a very large set of factors ranging from
number of cavities, size of the parts (and therefore the mold), complexity of the pieces,
expected tool longevity, surface finishes and many others.

[edit] Injection process

Small injection molder showing hopper, nozzle and die area

[edit] Injection molding cycle

For the injection molding cycle to begin, four criteria must be met: mold open, ejector
pins retracted, shot built, and carriage forward. When these criteria are met, the cycle
begins with the mold closing. This is typically done as fast as possible with a slow down
near the end of travel. Mold safety is low speed and low pressure mold closing. It
usually begins just before the leader pins of the mold and must be set properly to
prevent accidental mold damage. When the mold halves touch clamp tonnage is built.
Next, molten plastic material is injected into the mold. The material travels into the mold
via the sprue bushing, then the runner system delivers the material to the gate. The
gate directs the material into the mold cavity to form the desired part. This injection
usually occurs under velocity control. When the part is nearly full, injection control is
switched from velocity control to pressure control. This is referred to as the pack/hold
phase of the cycle. Pressure must be maintained on the material until the gate solidifies
to prevent material from flowing back out of the cavity. Cooling time is dependent
primarily on the wall thickness of the part. During the cooling portion of the cycle after
the gate has solidified, plastication takes place. Plastication is the process of melting
material and preparing the next shot. The material begins in the hopper and enters the
barrel through the feed throat. The feed throat must be cooled to prevent plastic pellets
from fusing together from the barrel heat. The barrel contains a screw that primarily
uses shear to melt the pellets and consists of three sections. The first section is the
feed section which conveys the pellets forward and allows barrel heat to soften the
pellets. The flight depth is uniform and deepest in this section. The next section is the
transition section and is responsible for melting the material through shear. The flight
depth continuously decreases in this section, compressing the material. The final
section is the metering section which features a shallow flight depth, improves the melt
quality and color dispersion. At the front of the screw is the non-return valve which
allows the screw to act as both an extruder and a plunger. When the screw is moving
backwards to build a shot, the non-return assembly allows material to flow in front of the
screw creating a melt pool or shot. During injection, the non-return assembly prevents
the shot from flowing back into the screw sections. Once the shot has been built and the
cooling time has timed out, the mold opens. Mold opening must occur slow-fast-slow.
The mold must be opened slowly to release the vacuum that is caused by the injection
molding process and prevent the part from staying on the stationary mold half. This is
undesirable because the ejection system is on the moving mold half. Then the mold is
opened as far as needed, if robots are not being used, the mold only has to open far
enough for the part to be removed. A slowdown near the end of travel must be utilized
to compensate for the momentum of the mold. Without slowing down the machine
cannot maintain accurate positions and may slam to a stop damaging the machine.
Once the mold is open, the ejector pins are moved forward, ejecting the part. When the
ejector pins retract, all criteria for a molding cycle have been met and the next cycle can
begin.

The basic injection cycle is as follows: Mold close – injection carriage forward –
inject plastic – metering – carriage retract – mold open – eject part(s) Some machines
are run by electric motors instead of hydraulics or a combination of both. The water-
cooling channels that assist in cooling the mold and the heated plastic solidifies into the
part. Improper cooling can result in distorted molding. The cycle is completed when the
mold opens and the part is ejected with the assistance of ejector pins within the mold.

The resin, or raw material for injection molding, is most commonly supplied in pellet or
granule form. Resin pellets are poured into the feed hopper, a large open bottomed
container, which is attached to the back end of a cylindrical, horizontal barrel. A screw
within this barrel is rotated by a motor, feeding pellets up the screw's grooves. The
depth of the screw flights decreases toward the end of the screw nearest the mold,
compressing the heated plastic. As the screw rotates, the pellets are moved forward in
the screw and they undergo extreme pressure and friction which generates most of the
heat needed to melt the pellets. Electric heater bands attached to the outside of the
barrel assist in the heating and temperature control during the melting process.

The channels through which the plastic flows toward the chamber will also solidify,
forming an attached frame. This frame is composed of the sprue, which is the main
channel from the reservoir of molten resin, parallel with the direction of draw, and
runners, which are perpendicular to the direction of draw, and are used to convey
molten resin to the gate(s), or point(s) of injection. The sprue and runner system can be
cut or twisted off and recycled, sometimes being granulated next to the mold machine.
Some molds are designed so that the part is automatically stripped through action of the
mold.

[edit] Molding trial

When filling a new or unfamiliar mold for the first time, where shot size for that mold is
unknown, a technician/tool setter usually starts with a small shot weight and fills
gradually until the mold is 95 to 99% full. Once this is achieved a small amount of
holding pressure will be applied and holding time increased until gate freeze off has
occurred, then holding pressure is increased until the parts are free of sinks and part
weight has been achieved. Once the parts are good enough and have passed any
specific criteria, a setting sheet is produced for people to follow in the future.
Process optimization is done using the following methods. Injection speeds are usually
determined by performing viscosity curves. Process windows are performed varying the
melt temperatures and holding pressures. Pressure drop studies are done to check if
the machine has enough pressure to move the screw at the set rate. Gate seal or gate
freeze studies are done to optimize the holding time. A cooling time study is done to
optimize the cooling time.

[edit] Molding defects

Injection molding is a complex technology with possible production problems. They can
either be caused by defects in the molds or more often by part processing (molding)
 Molding Alternative
Descriptions Causes
Defects name
Raised or layered Tool or material is too hot, often
Blister Blistering zone on surface of caused by a lack of cooling around
the part the tool or a faulty heater
Black or brown
burnt areas on the
Air Burn/ Gas Tool lacks venting, injection speed is
Burn marks part located at
Burn too high
furthest points from
gate
Masterbatch isn't mixing properly, or
Color streaks Colour Localized change of the material has run out and it's
(US) streaks (UK) color/colour starting to come through as natural
only
Contamination of the material e.g.
PP mixed with ABS, very dangerous
Thin mica like if the part is being used for a safety
Delamination layers formed in critical application as the material
part wall has very little strength when
delaminated as the materials cannot
bond
Tool damage, too much injection
Excess material in
speed/material injected, clamping
thin layer exceeding
Flash Burrs force too low. Can also be caused by
normal part
dirt and contaminants around tooling
geometry
surfaces.
Particles on the tool surface,
Foreign particle
contaminated material or foreign
Embedded Embedded (burnt material or
debris in the barrel, or too much
contaminates particulates other) embedded in
shear heat burning the material prior
the part
to injection
Injection speeds too slow (the plastic
Directionally "off has cooled down too much during
Flow marks Flow lines tone" wavy lines or injection, injection speeds must be
patterns set as fast as you can get away with
at all times)
Deformed part by
Poor tool design, gate position or
Jetting turbulent flow of
runner. Injection speed set too high.
material
polymer breakdown
Polymer Excess water in the granules,
from hydrolysis,
degradation excessive temperatures in barrel
oxidation etc
Holding time/pressure too low,
Localized cooling time too short, with sprueless
Sink marks depression (In hot runners this can also be caused
thicker zones) by the gate temperature being set
 About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2008 Munson Mfg.,
Inc.

This Site Is best Viewed At 1024 x 768 Or Greater Screen Resolution (click
HERE for more info)

Plastic Product Design Research

Overview

The term "good" in design is fraught with subjectivity. Generally, a design should at least
satisfy the needs of the customer at the lowest possible cost. Given different preferences
of the customer regarding cost and quality, "good" designs can vary completely from a
low cost Chery to a high cost Mercedes.

Past Advances
Robust Design

The term "robust" generally means that the design or process is insensitive to variation. A
frequent measure of robustness is the process capability index, which is the ratio of the
specification range to the observed variation. Our strategy for design is to first clarify
customer's needs, then characterize the expected input variation, evaluate the value of the
performance specifications, understand the functional relations between the decision
variables and performance measures, estimate the expected output variation through
moment matching or Monte Carlo methods, and ultimately derive a Pareto optimal set of
solutions from which a preferred design may be selected. As shown in the following
figure, the robustness of a design (as measured by combined yield) can generally be
improved by increasing the cost (though we readily admit that the most significant gains
are most frequently made through robust concept design!).
More recently, we have explored the concept of design flexibility in the event of
performance failure. This concept suggests that it may be better to choose a design that is
lower cost and not so robust, but may be easily improved in the event of failure.
Currently, we are working to systematize these concepts in product and process design
tools.

Economics

Cost estimation plays a vital role in product and process development. The question
should not be "can it be done?" but rather "should it be done?" The cost almost always
plays a significant role in the answer.

In particular, our research related to cost estimation is directed to robust product design
and process development. With respect to robust design, the optimization issue is
determining the robustness to uncertainty (availability) as a function of increasing cost. In
general, cost estimation is required on an application by application basis to ensure that
an appropriate level of robustness is found. The following figure shows two designs with
different levels of component integration. Our research has shown that the minimum cost
and optimum level of component integration is a strong function of the process capability,
and may not occur at total consolidation as implied by rules of Design for Manufacturing
and Assembly.

Quality and Design for Six Sigma

With respect to process development, the optimization issue is determining the marginal
cost as a function of the investment cost. In general, marginal cost can be decreased by
increasing up-front investment. Cost estimation is required on an application by
application basis to ensure that an appropriate level of process development is found. As
shown in the following figure, there is a minimum cost of quality that may not occur at
zero defect levels since the conformance costs are too high. It is our philosophy that the
plateau around this minimum may be quite broad, and it is important for manufacturers to
understand where they are on this figure and determine a proper balance.

Current Research
Cost Optimization
We are continuing our research related to cost estimation in the following areas: 1) low
volume manufacturing using rapid prototyping methods such as fused deposition
modeling, 2) low level estimation of injection mold tooling and processing costs; and 3)
high level estimation of production costs with varying levels of automation. We plan on
embodying this research in new cost estimation and optimization tools in the next few
months.

Related Publications
1. Irani, R. I., Kodiyalam, S., Kazmer, D. O., “Runner System Balancing for
Injection Molds using Approximation Concepts and Numerical Optimization,”
Proceeding from the 18th Annual ASME Design Automation Conference, 1992.

2. D. Kazmer, “Advanced Methods for Plastic Product Design and Process

Control,” Toyota Motor and Suppliers Meeting, Lowell, MA, April 22, 2005.

3. Roser, C. and D. O. Kazmer, “Defect Cost Analysis,” Plastics Failure Analysis

and Prevention", J. Moalli Ed. , 2001.

4. R. Karania and D. Kazmer, “Low Volume Plastics Manufacturing Strategies,”

Submitted to ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.

5. Kazmer, D., Lotti, C., Breta, R. E. S., Zhu, L., "Tuning and Control of
Dimensional Consistency in Molded Products," Advances in Polymer
Technology, v. 23, n. 3, Fall, 2004, p. 163-175.

6. L. Zhu and D. O. Kazmer, “An Extended Simplex Method for Global Feasibility
Evaluation,” Journal of Engineering Optimization, v. 35, n. 2, p. 165-176, 2003.

7. D. Kazmer, D. Kapoor, C. Roser, L. Zhu, and D. Hatch, “Definition and

Application of A Process Flexibility Index,” ASME Journal of Manufacturing
Science, v. 125, p. 164-172, 2003.

8. C. Roser, D. Kazmer, and J. Rinderle, “An Economic Design Change Method,”

ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, v. 125, n. 2, p. 233-239, 2003.

9. Zhu, L. and D. Kazmer, “A Performance-Based Representation for Engineering

Design,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, v. 123, n. 4, p. 486-493, 2001.

10. H. Xu and D. Kazmer, “Tight Tolerance Thermoforming,” International Polymer

Processing, v. 16, n. 2, p. 208-215, 2001.
11. J. Reilly, M. Doyle, and D. O. Kazmer, “An Assessment of Dynamic Feed
Control in Modular Tooling,” Journal of Injection Molding Technology,
September, 2001, 5 (1), p. 52-61.

12. A. Fagade and D. O. Kazmer, “Early Cost Estimation for Injection Molded
Parts,” Journal of Injection Molding Technology, September, 2000, 4 (3), p. 97-
106.

13. Xu, H. and D. O. Kazmer, “Productivity Evaluation with a Stiffness-Based

Ejection Criterion of Injection Molding,” Journal of Injection Molding
Technology, 1999, 3 (4), p. 211-218.

14. Kazmer, D.O. and C. Roser, “Evaluation of Product and Process Design
Robustness,” Research in Engineering Design, 1999. 11 (1), p. 21-30.

15. Kazmer, D.O. and D.S. Roe, “Exploiting Melt Compressibility to Achieve
Improves Weld Line Strenths,” International Journal of Plastics, Rubber and
Composites Processing, 1998. 27 (6), p. 272-278.

16. Kazmer, D.O., “Best Practices for Injection Molding,” Journal of Injection
Molding Technology, 1997. 1(1): p. 10-17.

17. R. Karania and D. Kazmer, “Low Volume Plastics Manufacturing Strategies,”

Submitted to Design for Manufacturing Symposium at the 2005 ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition..

18. David O. Kazmer, "Wall Thickness Optimization In Molded Product Design,"

Proceedings of the 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical
Conference, 2005.

19. David O. Kazmer and Mahesh Munavallia, "Design and Performance Analysis
Of A Self-Regulating Melt Pressure Valve," Proceedings of the 2005 Society of
Plastics Engineers Annual Technical Conference, 2005.

20. D. Kazmer and L. Zhu, "An Integrated Performance Modeling System," Design
for Manufacturing Symposium at the 2004 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress, Anaheim, CA, 2004.

21. Karania, R., Kazmer, D., and C. Roser, "Plastic Product and Process Design
Strategies," ASME DETC 9th Design for Manufacturing Conference, 2004.

22. Kazmer, D., Manek, K., Lotti, C., Breta, R. E. S., Zhu, L., "Dimensional
Tolerancing and Control in Molded Products," Proceedings of the 2003 ASME
 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Design for
Manufacturing Symposium, Washington, D.C., November 16-21, 2003.

23. Zhu, L. and D. O. Kazmer, “An Evolving, Model-Based Quality Function

Deployer,” ASME DETC 8th Design for Manufacturing Conference, v 3, 2003.

24. Kazmer, D., C. Roser, et al. (2003), “Hedge Strategies for Plastics Part Design,”
Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical Conference: Product Design &
Development Division, Nashville, TN.

25. Zhu, L., and D. O. Kazmer, “A Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making,”
Proceedings of the 4th National Science Foundation Design & Manufacturing
Conference, 2002. San Juan, Puerto Rico

26. L. Zhu and D. O. Kazmer, “An Extended Simplex Method for Global Feasibility
Evaluation,” ASME Design Automation Conference, 2002.

27. D. Kazmer, “The Development of Robust & Confident Decision Spaces,”

Proceedings of the 4th National Science Foundation Design & Manufacturing
Conference, 2002. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

28. Kazmer, D. O., Hatch, D., and L. Zhu“An Investigation of Variation and
Uncertainty in Six Sigma,” ASME DETC 7th Design for Manufacturing
Conference, v 3, p 21-29, 2002.

29. Zhu, L., and D. O. Kazmer, "An extensive simplex method mapping the global
feasibility," Proceedings of the 28th Design Automation Conference, ASME
Design Engineering Technical Conferences, v 2, 2002, p 765-771 Sep 29-Oct 2
2002, Montreal, Que., Canada.

30. Lang, J. and D. Kazmer, “How Increased Control in Plastic Melt Delivery
Increases Productivity,” Accepted to Society of Plastics Engineers Annual
Technical Conference, May 2002.

31. Kazmer, D. and L. Zhu, “Qualitative Reasoning for Decision Synthesis,”

Proceedings of ASME DETC 6th Design for Manufacturing Conference, 2001.
Pittsburgh, PA.

32. Doughty, M., Kazmer, D., “Dynamic Feed – Precision Molding in a Family Tool
Application,” Plastics Odyssey 2001, Rochester, NY, Sept. 24-25, 2001.
33. Hawk, L, Kazmer, D., “Commercial Applications for Dynamic Feed™ Providing
Dimensional Control for Each Injection Cavity,” K-Plast Processing Innovations,
Düsseldorf/Neuss, Germany, 2001.

34. Kazmer, D. O., Zhu, L., Roser, C., “Some Advances in Design Representation
and Feasibility Analysis,” Proceedings of the 3rd National Science Foundation
Design & Manufacturing Conference, 2001.

35. Zhao, Y., Zhu, L., and D. O. Kazmer, “A Method for Multi-Criteria Decision
Making,” Informs Decision Systems, 2000. Austin, TX.

36. D. O. Kazmer, A. Fagade, C. Roser, and L. Zhu, “Advances in Mechanical

Systems Synthesis,” Proceedings of the 3rd National Science Foundation Design
& Manufacturing Conference, 2000. Tampa, FL.

37. D. Kazmer, “Axiomatic Design Of The Injection Molding Process,” Proceedings

of the First International Conference on Axiomatic Design, 2000. Cambridge,
MA.

38. Kazmer, D. O., Fagade, A., Roser, C., Xu, H., and L. Zhu, "Incorporation of
Engineering Analysis within Design Synthesis," Proceedings of the 2nd National
Science Foundation Design & Manufacturing Conference, 2000. Monterrey,
Mexico.

39. L. Zhu and D. Kazmer, “A Performance-Based Representation Of Constraint

Based Reasoning And Decision Based Design,” Proceedings of the 12th Design
Theory & Methodology Conference, ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conferences, 2000.

40. Roser and D. Kazmer, “Flexible Design Methodology,” Proceedings of the 5th
Design for Manufacturing Conference, Proceedings of the 5th Design for
Manufacturing Conference, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences,
2000.

41. Roser and D. Kazmer, “A Method For Robust Flexible Design,” Proceedings of
the Annual Technical Meeting of the Society of Plastics Engineers, Orlando, FL,
2000.

42. Fagade, A. and D. O. Kazmer, “Optimal Component Consolidation in Plastic

Product Design.” Proceedings of the 4th Annual ASME Design for
Manufacturing Conference, 1999. Las Vegas, NV.
43. Roser, C. and D. O. Kazmer, “Risk Effect Minimization using Flexible Design,”
Proceedings of the 4th Annual ASME Design for Manufacturing Conference,
1999. Las Vegas, NV.

44. Zhu, L. and D. O. Kazmer, “A Performance-Based Representation for

Engineering Design.” Proceedings of the 11th Annual ASME Design Theory and
Methodology Conference, 1999. Las Vegas, NV.

45. Roser, C. and D. O. Kazmer, “Defect Cost Analysis.” in Proceeding of the

Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical Conference, 1999. New York,
NY.

46. Fagade, A. and D. O. Kazmer, “Effect of Complexity on Cost & Time to Market
of Injection Molded Parts.” in Proceeding of the Society of Plastics Engineers
Annual Technical Conference, 1999. New York, NY.

47. Xu, H. and D. O. Kazmer, “Validation of a Stiffness-Based Ejection Criterion for

Injection Molding.” in Proceeding of the Society of Plastics Engineers Annual
Technical Conference, 1999. New York, NY.

48. Fagade, A. and D.O. Kazmer. “Modeling The Effects of Complexity on

Manufacturing Costs and Time-To-Market of Plastic Injection Molded Products,”
in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Production and Operations
Management Society, March 20-23, 1999. Charleston, S.C.

49. Carter, S. and D. O. Kazmer, “Studies of Plastic Boss Design and

Methodologies.” in Proceeding of the Society of Plastics Engineers Annual
Technical Conference, 1999. New York, NY.

50. Fagade, A. and D.O. Kazmer. “Economic Design Of Injection Molded Parts
Using DFM Guidelines - A Review Of Two Methods For Tooling Cost
Estimation.” in Proceeding of the Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical
Conference, 1998. Atlanta, GA.

51. Kazmer, D. O., and C. Roser, “A Theory of Constraints for Design and
Manufacture of Thermoplastic Parts.” in Proceeding of the Society of Plastics
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, 1998. Atlanta, GA.

52. Kazmer, D. O., “Incorporation of Engineering Analysis into Design Synthesis,”

NSF Division of Design, Manufacturing, and Industrial Innovation, Grantees
Conference, Monterrey Mexico, January 1998.
53. Kazmer, D. O., “Beyond Analysis: Leveraging Computer Aided Engineering
throughout Design and Processing,” First Gordon Conference for CAE in
Polymer Processing, 1997.

54. Kazmer, D. O., Barkan, P., Ishii, K., “Quantifying Design and Manufacturing
Robustness through Stochastic Optimization Techniques,“ Proceedings of the
22nd Annual ASME Design Automation Conference, 1996.

55. Kazmer, D. O., Roe, D. S., “Increasing Knit-Line Strength through Dynamic
Control of Volumetric Shrinkage,” in Proceeding of the Society of Plastics
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, 1994.

56. Kazmer, D. O., “Advanced Design Methodologies for the Blow Molding
Process,” 20th Annual Structured Products Conference, Society of the Plastics
Industry, 1991.

57. Hayes, C., Wood, W., Mekshat, L., Kazmer, D., “Design for Manufacturing:
Future Directions for DfX,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences,
Salt Lake City, September, 2004.

58. Kazmer, D., “Fundamentals of Plastic Part Design and Manufacture,” National
Manufacturing Week Workshop, Chicago, IL, 2003.

59. D. Kazmer, “Decision Based Design: Some Questions,” NSF Open Workshop on
Decision Based Design, 2000. Baltimore, MD.

60. Kazmer, D. O., “Engineering Systems Design: Gaining Controllability of

Dynamic Processes,” Dartmouth Thayer School of Engineering Jones Seminar,
May 2000.

61. Danai, K., Kazmer, D. O., and B. Kim, "Polymer Part Design & Processing,"
University of Massachusetts Polymer Science & Engineering Symposium, 1999.

62. Kazmer, D. O., "A Theory of Constraints for Molded Part Design and
Manufacture," GE Research & Development, 1998.

63. Kazmer, D.O., “Automating Molded Product Development using the Web,”
Society of the Plastics Industry PlasticWorld, 1998. McCormick Center, Chicago.

64. Kazmer, D. O., “Robust Design Metrics,” GE Corporate Research &

Development Center, 1996.

65. D. Kazmer, “Lean Development,” Flow Front Magazine, Moldflow Inc., April,
2005.
66. D. Kazmer, Book Review, Design of Machine Elements by M. F. Spotts, T.E.
Shoup, L. E. Hornberger, Eighth Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 2004 (ISBN 0-13-048989-1). Journal of Mechanical Design, 2003.

67. Kazmer, D. O., “An Optimization Primer,” paper written for Introduction to
Engineering Course Reader, August 1, 2003.

68. D. Kazmer, Invention Disclosure, Method for Dynamic Cost Estimation of

Injection Molded Article, 2002.

69. Kazmer, D., Hatch, D., Zhu, L., "Four Measures of System Performance," 2002.

70. Zhu, L., and D. O. Kazmer, "An Extensive Simplex Method for Mapping Global
Feasibility," 2001.

71. Fagade, A., Kazmer, D., "Optimal Component Consolidation in Mechanical

Systems," 2000.

72. Kazmer, D. O., Zhu, L., "A Performance Based Representation for Support of
Multiple Decisions," International Application No. WO 00/72268, November 30,
2000.

73. D. Kazmer, Invention Disclosure, A Performance Orientation Chart for Decision

Support, 2000.

74. Fagade, A., Kazmer, D., "Early Cost Estimation for Injection Molded Parts,"
1999.

75. Fagade, A., Kapoor, D., and D. Kazmer, "A Discussion of Design and
Manufacturing Complexity," 1998.

76. D. Kazmer, Invention Disclosure, Looking Glass: An Optimization System for

Injection Molding, 1998.

77. Kazmer, D. O., Injection Molding Cost Estimator (Java Software), 1995.

78. Kazmer, D.O., “Injection Molding,” Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing,

Marcel Dekker, Sunggyu (K.B.) Lee, Ed., 2005.