Cost Reduction Opportunities in the Part/Mold Design and Engineering Process

Mark Matsco, Bayer Material Science LLC Terry G. Davis, Bayer Material Science LLC
Anyone who has worked in the plastics industry, even for a short time, knows that cost is a key if not the key factor in the decision to produce a part or assembly. Controlling production cost is an important step in a profitable molding operation. The most successful molding companies understand their own production costs and can quickly assess the cost effectiveness of producing a given component. It is not the only place, however, that provides opportunities to improve the bottom line. The real cost of a component begins with the initial concept. The initial vision of the component begins to lock in shapes and features. These shapes and features have a great influence throughout the design phase. It is during this phase of the process that these features and shapes become tooling and molding dreams or nightmares. It is also during the design phase that a number of significant opportunities exist to create a product which meets performance requirements at the lowest possible cost. This discussion will focus on some of those opportunities and hopefully provide some considerations to help the designer balance the struggle of cost vs. performance. Some of the key design and engineering factors that can influence final component cost are listed below: Concept Development Material Candidate Selection Part/Assembly Design Design Optimization Process Mold and Injection System Design & Analysis Designing for Special Manufacturing Processes about how a product functions, but also economic ways to achieve that functionality via design. For example, an enclosure application as seen in Fig. 1 could be designed as two separate molded components snapped together or as a single component using a two-shot molding process, forming a living hinge (Fig. 1). Understanding the cost benefits and penalties of decisions made at the concept stage will have a significant impact on the part aesthetics, functionality and manufacturing steps required to produce the housing. Material Candidate Selection A molded product will typically have several cost factors, which added together, determine its overall cost. These can be broadly be categorized as: Capital Raw Materials Labor Utilities & Overheads

Concept Development The birth of a product and its resulting cost is at the concept stage. It is at this point when the designer/engineer can make critical decisions

The largest of these factors is often the raw material cost making it a significant percentage for most injection molded components. This fact means that it is very important for the engineer to evaluate the performance criteria of the molded component that most effects the type and amount of material required in the application. Selecting the right material with specific engineering properties necessary to meet the critical service requirements of the product will allow the designer to achieve the optimum cost/pound/performance ratio. Since the material selection goes hand-in-hand with the design optimization it is vital that the appropriate engineering properties be compared when selecting the right resin for the job. For example, Fig. 2 shows the time and temperature dependency of Makrolon PC vs. an ABS material. Clearly, if creep or stress relaxation (with or without temperature influence) are considerations in the application, the use of a more durable resin is necessary. The design layout also plays a differentiating role in material selection and thus the final cost of a product. Fig. 3 shows a computer monitor that was

1
ANTEC 2006 / 1849

designed using a Bayblend PC/ABS blend, due to the fact that the load on the monitor was such that PS could not meet the creep requirements. The monitor was designed with a uniform 4mm wall thickness. Using design optimization tools it was found that only a small load bearing region of ribs and walls required a 4 mm thickness to meet the structural needs. Incorporating the 4 mm sections only where needed it was possible to reduce the wall stock for the non-load bearing areas of the part to an average of 3mm thickness. This substantially lowered the parts volume and therefore the overall raw material cost, and consequently the molding cycle time, effectively maintaining the application in an engineering thermoplastic with a total component cost savings of approximately 25%. In summary, it is not advisable for the engineer to simply look at price/pound as the differentiating factor in reducing the cost of a component. An innovative design that maximizes the materials performance is the key to minimizing cost and maximizing performance. Part/Assembly Design Details As mentioned earlier, the concept development defines the playing field for which a product is to be developed, but the engineering details can make or break achieving a cost target. From a cost perspective the engineer needs to take advantage of all the design related opportunities available. For example, Fig. 4 shows a side wall window design that avoids the need for side action slides, reducing tooling cost and potential process problems. Making use of joining techniques which do not require secondary operations can take significant cost out of a component/assembly. The key is designing these features in before cutting steel. Fig. 5 shows a snap-fit assembly replacing a more expensive metal insert/screw design. In order to use such designs a higher performance engineering resin would need to be selected rather than a lower performance commodity material. A cost comparison between using a cheaper material vs. the advantage of the reduced assembly steps (and the associated manufacturing costs) needs to be made. Components with critical cosmetic requirements can create significant added cost from rejects,

tooling changes, and timeline delays. Often these issues are directly related to the design details. For example Fig. 7 shows a poorly designed boss causing wall thickness read-through. This results in part rejects, re-design, re-tooling and part ejection issues; all which could have been avoided by proper design. Design Optimization Process Knowing when you have an optimal design is a difficult question to answer but is vital to assuring that the component meets the requirements and is as cost effective as possible. Generally, two design considerations will dictate the optimization of a plastic part structural integrity and moldability. The goal then is to design the part such that the material is utilized where it is needed to handle loadings, etc., but is sufficient enough to be able to allow defect free filling in the mold. Due to the free-formability of plastic materials, finite element design techniques need to be applied to both optimize the structural and moldability issues. In the past, components requiring impact for example, would typically be designed for quasistatic loadings and then would go through an iterative prototyping phase to optimize the impact related issues. Advances in simulation capabilities have now allowed for accurate prediction of high speed impact events, which in turn can significantly reduce the product development timeline and eliminate the over-design which results in increased cost. For example, the cell phone housing analysis in Fig. 8 gives the engineer the ability to determine failure without cutting a prototype tool, and place material where it is most needed, minimum zing material. Paramount in such an analysis is the use of the proper engineering highstrain rate material properties. Material behavior input for impact will require special non-standard testing results such as that shown for Bayblend PC/ABS in Fig. 8. Another advanced CAE tool that has been shown to help the engineer to select the best material and minimize the amount of material needed is Shape/Topology/Wall Thickness Optimization software. Fig. 9 illustrates an example of how a computer monitor support is designed for a given set of loading conditions. Here a Bayblend PC/ABS is found to use the least amount of material with the computer generated optimal rib pattern. Mold and Injection System Design & Analysis

As mentioned above, an optimal design is only one-half of the equation. Moldability at the lowest cost is critical. Usually the design of the injection system is the key to successfully molding a part at minimum cycle time with minimized scrap. CAE mold filling tools are a necessity to avoid the trial and error process in tool optimization. Fig. 10 for example shows a automotive headlamp bezel that exceeds pressure limits with a single gate. By strategically using multiple gates, weld lines are located in acceptable areas avoiding an expensive hot-runner system reducing the tooling cost. Fig. 11 illustrates the use of up-front runner balance optimization (hot-drop to cold runner) which minimizes scrap and allows for a single fourcavity mold to be used. Significant reduction in cycle time and tooling cost is achieved. One area where significant cost can be avoided is by thoroughly understanding the fit and form of assembled components. Here the ability to predict the warpage of a component can save excessive tool tweaking which can cause cost overruns. Fig. 12 shows a printer chassis which is fine tuned for tolerance using shrinkage/warpage and cooling software. Here the cycle time is minimized by optimal cooling channel placement, and warpage is controlled within spec all before first tooling is cut. Engineering expertise is essential to fully benefit from such analyses. Designing for Special Manufacturing Processes Recognizing and engineering for special molding processes has proven to be very effective in reducing final part manufacturing cost. Technologies such as multi-component molding (see Fig. 1), gas-assist molding, film-insert molding, injection-compression, and especially thin wall molding have proven to be cost saving options when the part is designed for the technology and the proper engineering material is selected. When parts are not designed to fit the special technology, however, significant tooling rework and delay can result; be sure to have a fully thought out design before applying some of these techniques. Thin-wall molding in certain industries has been very successful in minimizing material usage and lowering overall cost (Fig. 13). Experience has shown that thin-wall parts need special attention

in terms of using high flow durable materials that can handle the high injection rates (Fig. 14). Designing of ribs, wall thickness, part shape, and gate location are critical to a thin walled part. Beefed up tooling, special high injection pressure molding equipment, hot-runner systems using valve-gating techniques all need to be considered when balancing the cost savings from reduced material usage vs. the increased manufacturing complexity. Summary Clearly there are many ways to reduce the total cost of a molded component while maintaining product performance. Forward thinking engineering is vital to ensuring that most cost effective design has been achieved.
Manufacturing Processes
Enabling Technologies - Multi-Component Molding
Tool Handle Soft-Hard Grip

CD/DVD Case Overmolded Seal

Applications Engineering

Bayer MaterialScience

Fig. 1

Isochronous Tensile Stress-Strain 23C

(1000 hrs) 40

35

30

Stress [MPa]

25

20

Makrolon (PC) Bayblend (PC/ABS) Lustran (ABS)

15

10

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Strain [%] 2.5 3 3.5 4

Fig. 2