THE WATER INJECTION TECHNIQUE (WIT)
AS AN ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE AND SUPPLEMENT TO
GAS-ASSISTED INJECTION MOLDING (GAIM)
Tim Jntgen, Walter Michaeli
Institut fr Kunststoffverarbeitung (IKV), Pontstrae 49, D-52062 Aachen, Germany
Abstract
The water injection technique (WIT), developed
at the Institute of Plastics Processing (IKV), Aachen,
Germany, is an innovative specialty injection molding
process that is closely related to the well-known gas-
assisted injection molding (GAIM). The primary aim of the
development was to reduce cooling times in the material-
saving production of hollow plastics articles by means of
using water as a process medium for melt displacement.
Besides other advantages, especially the considerably more
efficient cooling effect of water meant that cooling times
could be reduced by up to 70 % compared with GAIM.
Investigations on a wide range of unfilled and filled
materials show that WIT constitutes an attractive
alternative and supplement to GAIM.
Historical milestones of fluid injection
Gas-assisted injection molding is a specialty
injection molding process and has been an established and
acknowledged technique in manufacturing thermoplastic
parts with reduced material consumption, no/little warpage
and without sink marks for many years. There are,
however, certain limitations to the gas injection technique,
such as the low level of heat elimination via the gas, the
potential foaming of the melt, the limit on the diameter of
the part and the long cooling and cycle times etc.
The idea of using liquids as fluid process media
for melt displacement instead of gas is therefore self-
evident. In many applications for intellectual property
rights on GAIM, the terms pressure fluid or flowing
medium are often used for a comprehensive coverage
since the mid-80s. Yet, until today, the development
relating to this process has been focussed on GAIM, which
has become generally known at latest through Mohrbach
and Yasuike in the 70s (1; 2). Until today, a multitude of
GAIM processing variants has been filed for patent world-
wide (among others: 3-5).
The water injection technique (WIT) developed
at IKV at the end of 1998 is carried out in such a way that
the water does not evaporate during melt displacement
when forming hollow sections. This is due to the high
volume flow rate and high pressure (6; 7), which is of
particular importance for the WIT process itself. Only due
to this process control, the advantages of the liquid process
medium water (inexpensive, available everywhere, re-
usable, good cooling effect and easy removal from the
molded part) take effect.
In principle, the process variants of WIT are
identical with those of GAIM and sandwich injection
molding. Figure 1 illustrates the four most common process
variants for fluid injection. The single processes distinguish
themselves concerning the respective process controls.
These again result in specific advantages and disadvantages
relating to material-saving, material strain/damage,
changeover marks, perfect filling of compact areas in
highly integrated molded parts, mold complexity,
patent/royalty situation etc.
Plant and injector technology
In principle, volume- or pressure-controlled
plants, as known from water hydraulics, can be and are
used for the proper plant technology with WIT (8).
Figure 2 schematically shows an example for a WIT variant
besides a photograph of the mobile WIT pilot plant of IKV.
This simple and compact WIT plant is based on the
functional principle of a bypass in combination with a
plunger pump.
The basic requirement for the WIT is the
realization of a sufficiently high volume flow rate and the
formation of a melt displacing flow front (8). Here, the
injector represents the most crucial link between the WIT
plant and the injection molding machine or the injection
mold, respectively. Figure 3 is a schematic illustration of
different injectors of IKV, which are generally fit for fluid
injection technology, but especially for the WIT. All three
injector concepts have been developed and already been
thoroughly tested and optimized at IKV.
The Type 1 injector represents a very simple
concept of a self-operated WIT injector. It can always be
utilized, when existing GAIM molds shall be modified
without great effort relating to design, time and costs, in
order to carry out feasibility studies with regard to the
WIT. In contrast, Type 2 and 3 injectors are externally
operated injectors, which offer significant advantages over
self-operated injectors (Type 1) with regards to process
control and process reliability. Whereas Type 2 represents
a pneumatic concept of a dual sleeve, Type 3 injector is a
hydraulically operated injector. Externally operated
injectors allow an automatic water retrieval from the closed
mold during the injection molding cycle, which is a matter
of particular interest for series production. Even though the
water may remain (at least temporarily) within the (sealed)
molded part, the water must be stringently removed in most
cases, especially if the molded parts are to be subsequently
used outdoors (possible exposure to freezing temperatures).
The Type 3 injector offers the best process reliability.
Comparison of GAIM and WIT
Surely, the most demonstrative advantage of
WIT compared with GAIM is the considerably more
efficient cooling effect of water versus gas, as mentioned
above. This results in significantly reduced cooling times
by up to 70 % in water-assisted injection molding
compared with GAIM, depending on the part size and
geometry and on the specified product properties.
Figure 4 indirectly depicts this phenomenon,
instancing a simulation of the temperature profiles across
the residual wall of a rod-shaped hollow molding for
GAIM (upper half, left) and WIT (lower half, left)
10 seconds after fluid injection. With WIT, the heat
elimination via the water is on a similar level as the one via
the mold. On the other hand, nitrogen has a heat
conductivity approximately 40 times and a heat capacity
about 4 times smaller than water. Thus, gas has no
significant cooling effect on the polymer melt so that the
part cools down only from the mold side (from outside)
with GAIM.
According to the diverse cooling down processes
with GAIM and WIT moldings, totally different molded
part defects may occur, as shown in Figure 4 on the right
hand side. Due to an inadequate choice of processing
parameters, foaming at the inner surface may occur with
GAIM parts, whereas voids between the already frozen
inner and outer marginal layers are possible with WIT
moldings. The results of the simulations were verified by
extensive practical tests as to demolding temperatures at
IKV.
The different cooling down procedures with
GAIM and WIT directly affect the resulting
microstructures across the residual wall, as illustrated with
moldings made of PP at a constant mold temperature of
30 C (Figure 5). First of all, a distinct difference in
residual wall thickness stands out, when comparing GAIM
and WIT moldings. The use of WIT obviously implies
smaller residual wall thicknesses compared to GAIM with
matchable parameters. As expected, there is no significant
difference in the morphology on the mold side of each part.
Both specimens show a similar, very fine crystalline
structure on the mold side and growing structures towards
the inside. The most coarsely crystalline structure is on the
gas side of the GAIM-specimen, whereas the WIT-
specimen shows a finely crystalline structure inside and
outside, with the most coarsely crystalline structure in
between both marginal layers.
In addition, further comparative investigations
were carried out with GAIM and WIT, each with an
unfilled/natural as well as a filled (30 % glass fiber
reinforcement) polymer and a rod-shaped test molding of
IKV (Figure 6). Here, it turned out that smoother inner
surfaces can generally be achieved with WIT something,
which is particularly attractive for applications such as
media ducts (9). Figure 6 illustrates the difference in fluid-
sided surface quality of molded parts manufactured with
GAIM (G) and WIT (W), and again each with an
unfilled/natural (N) as well as a filled (F) polymer. As
shown in the photographs, there is a significant difference
in the resulting inner surface quality, when comparing
GAIM and WIT parts.
Furthermore, with the WIT, it is generally
possible to achieve larger part dimensions for a lower
residual wall thickness than with the gas injection
technique, as shown exemplarily in Figure 6 with the same
rod-shaped test molding. This decrease in residual wall
thickness from GAIM to WIT can be explained by the fact,
that with WIT, the penetrating water instantly freezes a
certain amount of the polymer melt on contact. Thus,
during the subsequent melt displacement, this membrane of
frozen polymer melt is pushed through the molded part all
the way to the end of the flow path by the water core.
Functioning similar to a snowplow, more material from the
residual walls can thus be displaced to the flow paths end.
As mentioned above, gas (i. e. nitrogen) does not have a
quarter as good cooling impact on the inside. This explains
the greater residual wall thicknesses with parts
manufactured with GAIM.
Finally, compared with GAIM, a significantly
better centricity of the hollow section can be realized
through the use of WIT, especially in curves and
redirections (Figure 7). This was the result of extensive
investigations on the differences in residual wall thickness
of a flow path, another test molded part of IKV.
As every processing technique, the WIT also
bears some disadvantages besides its above mentioned
preferences. One of the disadvantages with the WIT is the
risk of water splashes in the event of tool setting errors for
example. In addition, the water must be removed from the
molded part in many cases, similar to the gas retrieval with
GAIM. Gas-assisted injection molding, on the other hand,
is a dry process in the event of tool setting errors.
 Fields of application
The main area of application for water-assisted
injection molding lies in the field of material- and cooling-
time-saving production of thick-walled and rod-shaped
parts. Quite recently, the production of functional cavities
in the field of fluid injection technology has been gaining
increasing importance. This field covers, for example,
media ducts, where GAIM or WIT permits a significant
reduction in production costs compared with the traditional
manufacturing process (extrusion, forming and subsequent
fabrication or 3D-blow molding). An example of one such
complex media duct with a large number of functional
elements (flanges, clips etc.) is shown in Figure 8. To
produce this WIT demonstration molding, which is very
close to industrial practice, the IKV used a test mold with
which either the overspill cavity or the melt push back
process can be applied.
Conclusions and outlook
The materials intended to be used for the
application should always be tested in preliminary trials. A
large number of different test molds are available at the
IKV for this purpose (pipe sections with diameters 10-
60 mm and lengths between approximately 500 and
3000 mm). So far, PA, PP, PE, ABS, ASA, PBT and HI-PS
have been successfully processed with the WIT using the
short-shot or full-shot processes.
Whether or not the WIT is suitable for a specific
product, such as handles, arm rests, media ducts for
example, must be decided in each individual case. Possible
WIT-applications may be found in the fields of automotive
industry, sports/leisure/consumer goods, brown and white
goods medical products etc. For certain areas of
application, it makes sense that manufacturers simply
substitute GAIM by the WIT. Yet, as with every other
process, the WIT does not constitute the ultimate
processing technique. Given the appropriate products and
materials, WIT, however, represents an attractive
alternative and/or supplement to GAIM. Although the WIT
is still in its early days, it has the potential to be used in
applications in which GAIM has come up against its
economic and technical limitations. WIT offers the best
conditions for reducing cycle times and still has plenty of
potential for improvement.
Acknowledgement
The study and development of the water
injection technique was financed by the German Ministry
of Economics and Technology (BMWi) through the
Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsver-
einigungen Otto von Guericke e. V. (AiF) via the Future
technologies for small and medium-sized companies
program (12 ZN).
Keywords
Fluid Injection Molding, Plant/Injector Technology,
Process Technology, Cooling Time Reduction
References
(1) Mohrbach, E., Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum
Spritzgieen von Gegenstnden aus Kunststoff, OS-DE
2106546, 1972
(2) Yasuike, A., Verfahren zur Herstellung geformter
Gegenstnde aus synthetischen Harzen, OS-DE 2461580,
1973
(3) Friederich, E., Method for injection molding of hollow
shaped bodies from thermoplastic resins, US-PS 4101617,
1978
(4) Yamazaki, K., Method of injection moulding and
mouldings produced thereby, EP 0289230, 1988
(5) Jaroschek, C., Verfahren zum Spritzgieen
fluidgefllter Kunststoffkrper und Vorrichtung zur
Durchfhrung des Verfahrens, DE 3913109, 1991
(6) Michaeli, W; Brunswick A.; Gruber, M., Gas geben mit
Wasser: Wasserinjektionstechnik (WIT) Eine neue
Alternative zur GIT ? Kunststoffe 89 (1999) 4, p. 84-86
(7) Michaeli, W.; Brunswick, A.; Pohl, T., Gas oder
Wasser ? Spritzgieen von Hohlkrpern durch
Fluidinjektion, Kunststoffe 89 (1999) 9, p. 62-65
(8) Michaeli, W.; Brunswick, A.; Kujat, C., Khlzeit
reduzieren mit der Wasser-Injektionstechnik Vorteile
gegenber der Gasinjektion, Kunststoffe 90 (2000) 8, p.
67-72
(9) Michaeli, W.; Jntgen, T.; Brunswick, A., WIT En
Route to Series Production First Industrial Application
of the Water Injection Technique, plast europe 91 (2001) 3,
p. 37-39