Suhas Kulkarni

Robust Process Development

and Scientific Molding
Theory and Practice

2nd Edition
 Kulkarni
Robust Process Development
and Scientific Molding
Suhas Kulkarni

Robust Process
Development and
Scientific Molding
Theory and Practice

2nd Edition

Hanser Publishers, Munich Hanser Publications, Cincinnati

The Author:
Suhas Kulkarni, 2097 Courage Street, Vista, CA 92081, USA

Distributed in the Americas by:

Hanser Publications
6915 Valley Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45244-3029, USA
Fax: (513) 527-8801
Phone: (513) 527-8977
www.hanserpublications.com

Distributed in all other countries by:

Carl Hanser Verlag
Postfach 86 04 20, 81631 München, Germany
Fax: +49 (89) 98 48 09
www.hanser-fachbuch.de

The use of general descriptive names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially
identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks
Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true
and accurate at the date of going to press, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein.

The final determination of the suitability of any information for the use contemplated for a given application
­remains the sole responsibility of the user.

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file with the Library of Congress

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher.

© Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 2017

Editor: Cheryl Hamilton
Production Management: Jörg Strohbach
Coverconcept: Marc Müller-Bremer, www.rebranding.de, München
Coverdesign: Stephan Rönigk
Printed and bound by Kösel, Krugzell
Printed in Germany

ISBN: 978-1-56990-586-9
E-Book ISBN: 978-1-56990-587-6
Dedicated to my Parents
Dr. Mohan P Kulkarni
Jayashree M Kulkarni
 Preface to the
Second Edition

As the saying goes “the only thing that is constant is change.” It has been six years
since the first edition of this book was published, and it has been very well ­received.
Thank you to all its readers. Since then, I have continued my research to further
understand the process of injection molding with the final goal of robust process
development. As I kept publishing and teaching this new material, it became time
to revise the book.
This second edition has new material in almost all the chapters. Some concepts,
which were explained in the first edition, have been expanded upon and rewritten
for better understanding. Several figures have been added to complement the
­explanations. Some of the chapters and text have been split up and rearranged
to have a better flow of understanding. A complete chapter on “Basic Quality Con-
cepts” has also been added.
The topic of process development is a complex one, but once the concepts are
­understood, implementation is easy. The key is to understand the basics first. Over
the years, in my consulting business, I often get called on by companies to ‘fix’
their processes. I always go back to the basics and ask them several simple ques-
tions about their molds, machines, and processes to which they sometimes have no
answer, or when they do answer my questions, they figure out the solution to the
problem on their own. Their process development was probably done by throwing
darts on a dartboard and hence the issues. This book is attempting to change that.
By using the techniques described in this book, one can establish what I call cruise
control processes: set the process, start molding, and never touch a setting until the
run is done.
The topic of “Design of Experiments” (DOE) has great importance in injection
molding. Many companies employ this technique, but not effectively. The reason is
not because of their lack of knowledge of DOE, but because of their lack of under-
standing of the basics of molding, along with their choice of factors and levels for
the DOE. This topic has been expanded in the new edition.
I would like to thank Hanser Publications and their staff for this opportunity to
write the second edition. Mark Smith and Cheryl Hamilton have been very helpful
VIII Preface to the Second Edition

with the proofing and, moreover, very patient with all the delays from my side.
I would also like to thank several other people who have helped me with the sec-
ond edition. Lorena Castro who took all the bits and pieces of my writing and trans-
formed it into readable flow needs a special mention and acknowledgement.
In the preface to the first edition, I failed to mention a very important place that
also helped shape my career and my life. The National Chemical Laboratory (NCL),
Pune, India, is where my dad worked all his life as a research scientist. I lived in the
shadows of this great institution and its several researchers. My dad would often
take me to his lab when he conducted his research, and that is where the seeds of
my future were laid. I worked on a couple of projects during my college days in its
Polymer Engineering Department, and that was my first personal exposure and
­involvement with research. It was my experience at NCL, which was one of the
contributing factors that pushed me to study further.
My constant sources of inspiration and help include Tim and Violeta of Distinctive
Plastics, who have opened their company for my research and seminars, my profes-
sor from college, Dr. Basargekar, my colleagues in the industry, Ravi Khare, Atul
Khandekar, Vishu Shah, Vikram Bhargava, Randy Phillips, and my family.
To my mom, dad, and siblings, I will be forever indebted to you for all the support
and inspiration you have given me over the years.
Suhas Kulkarni
October 2016
 Preface to
First Edition

When I interviewed for my second job after I graduated, I was told that if the posi-
tion was offered to me, I would have to spend my first three days at a seminar on
Scientific Molding and Design of Experiments. It was all new to me then. My job
was to implement this new technology as a standard across the company. The job
was offered to me; I accepted and attended the seminar. Implementing the tech-
niques on the first couple molds was a refreshing change from how I did it before.
The scientific method of developing the process left no room for any guess work by
applying the theories of polymer science and injection molding. Scientific evidence
proved why parts could be or could not be molded consistently within the required
specifications. My enthusiasm for the use of these techniques grew as I found
more and more evidence of success. Over the next few years, I gave presentations
at the local SPE chapter and the attendees wanted to learn more to make their
­operations efficient. In 2004 I decided to start consulting in the area of Scientific
Processing, a term I coined to include all the processes that are involved in the
transformation of the pellet to the final product that is shipped out to the customer.
My research work on the ‘overdrying’ of PBT and Nylon was the main driving force
to think of the process as being outside of the molding machine and not just what
happens in the mold. As my consulting and teaching career expanded, I found
many people looking for a resource to learn the basic underlying principles of
polymers and plastics and apply them to injection molding. They wanted to
­
­understand the why, and then how of Scientific Processing. ‘Where can I find this
information?’ was always a question that was asked. This book is the answer to
their question.
Understanding the molding process from the scientific perspective helps in mak-
ing better decisions to establish the parameters that are involved in controlling the
journey of the pellet; from the warehouse to the molding machine and then to its
conversion as a molded product. All the parameters are set on the basis of scien-
tific knowledge and experience making the process efficient in terms of produc­
tivity. Higher yield, reduced scrap, robust processes, reduced quality inspection,
reduced number of process changes leading to less human intervention are some
X Preface to First Edition

of the benefits of Scientific Processing. This book details the theory and practice of
Scientific Processing. There are a lot of ‘rules of thumb’ in injection molding. My
mission is to eliminate them and present a scientific solution. A good example is
the size of vents in the mold.
I hope my commitment to researching and understanding of the molding process
will continue to give a better insight to the process. I hope to share those with you
in the future editions of this book. There are a number of people who are part of
the success of writing this book. Some gave me the knowledge, some inspired me
to learn more while others gave me unconditional support in this endeavor. It is
impossible to thank all of them individually but without all of them this project
would not have been accomplished. First and foremost, special mention must be
made of my father who introduced me to the fascinating world of chemical re-
search. It is from here that I get my curiosity, creativity and my analytical abilities
of problem solving. Thanks to my teachers and professors who not only imparted
the knowledge but also instilled in me the value of education through the dedica-
tion to their students. It is from here that I get my inspiration to teach and spread
my knowledge. Thanks to my family and friends who have supported me and be-
lieved in me. It is from them that I get my will power and courage to get past the
current frontiers and take a step into an unknown future.
In the production of this book I would like to thank Christine Strohm and the man-
agement of Hanser Publications for publishing the book. The sections on cavity
pressure sensing and the chapter on rheology were reviewed by Mike Groleau of
RJG and John Beaumont of Beaumont Technologies respectively. Thanks to them
for their valuable comments. Thanks also to Dave Hart for proofreading the text
and making the matter an interesting technical read. Valuable comments from
Ravi Khare of Symphony Technologies were included on the DOE chapter. Without
the unconditional help of Tim and Violeta Curnutt of Distinctive Plastics I would
have not had the chance to experiment with many of the theories and applications
put forward in this book. Special thanks to them for letting me make Distinctive
Plastics my home during the book writing process. I am often told I am an effective
teacher with clear concepts in polymer science and rheology – I have picked the
teaching skills and the knowledge from Prof. Basargekar – my sincere acknowl-
edgements to him. Under the leadership of Vishu Shah I conducted a few success-
ful seminars with the Society of Plastics Engineers. These seminars gave me the
fuel and material for this book. Thanks to Vishu not only for the opportunities of
the seminars but also for being a professional guide and a personal friend. I would
also like to acknowledge the efforts of John Bozzelli and Rod Groleau for their
­pioneering work in Scientific Molding and raising its awareness in the molding
community.
 Preface to First Edition XI

To my alma maters, Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Pune, India and Univer-

sity of Massachusetts, Lowell, USA: Hidden in one of your foundations’ bricks are
the enriching roots to my success. Thank You.
Suhas Kulkarni
FIMMTECH Inc.
Vista, CA.
January 2010
 Contents

Preface to the Second Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Preface to First Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

1 Introduction to Scientific Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The Evolution and Progress of ­Injection ­Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The Molding Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 The Three Types of Consistencies ­Required in Injection Molding . . . . 2
1.4 Scientific Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 The Five Critical Factors of Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5.1 Part Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5.2 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5.3 Mold Design and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.4 Machine Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.5 Molding Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6 Concurrent Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Properties of Polymers and Plastics That Influence 

Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 Polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Molecular Weight and Molecular Weight Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Polymer Morphology (Crystalline and Amorphous Polymers) . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Role of Morphology in Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.1 Differences in Shrinkage between Amorphous and ­
Crystalline Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.2 Melt Processing Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.3 Mold Filling Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
XIV Contents

2.4.4 Mold Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.4.5 Barrel Heat Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.6 Screw Recovery Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.7 Nozzle Temperature Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.8 Cooling Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.9 Mechanical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.10 Optical Clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Exceptions of Morphology Rules to ­Polyolefins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6 Thermal Transitions in Polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.1 Relationship between the Glass Transition Temperature
and Post Mold Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7 Shrinkage of Polymers in ­Injection ­Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.8 The Plastic Pressure–Volume–­Temperature (PVT) Relationship . . . . . . 39
2.8.1 Importance of Plastic Density in Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.8.2 Residence Time and Maximum Residence Time of a Plastic . . . 41
2.8.3 Plastic Datasheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3 Polymer Rheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1 Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2 Newtonian and Non-Newtonian ­Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3 Viscosity in Polymer Melts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.4 Effect of Temperature on Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.5 Velocity and Shear Rate Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.6 Application to Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.6.1 Flow Imbalance in an 8-Cavity Mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.6.2 Racetrack Effect in a Part with Constant Thickness . . . . . . . . . 59
3.6.3 Stress Build-Up in Molded Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.6.4 Warpage Difference between Cavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.7 Solving Flow Imbalances Using Melt Rotation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.8 Fountain Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.9 Effect of Fountain Flow on Crystallinity, Molecular Orientation,
and Fiber O­ rientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.10 Characterization of Polymer Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 Contents XV

4 Plastic Drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1 Problems in Melt Processing Related to the Presence of Moisture . . . . 71
4.1.1 Degradation of Plastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.2 Presence of Surface Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2 Hygroscopic Polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3 Drying of Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.1 Drying Temperatures and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.2 Relative Humidity and Dew Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.3 Air Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4 Equipment for Drying Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4.1 Oven Dryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4.2 Hot Air Dryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4.3 Desiccant Dryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4.4 Classifications Based on the Location of the Dryer . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.5 Determination of the Amount of ­Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.5.1 The Glass Slide Technique (TVI Test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.5.2 The Karl-Fischer Titration Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5.3 Electronic Moisture Analyzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5.4 Measurement of the Dew Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.6 ‘Overdrying’ or Overexposure to Drying Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7 Cautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.8 Prevention of Overexposure to ­Longer Drying Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.9 Overdrying Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5 Common Plastic Materials and Additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.1 Classification of Polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.2 Commercially Important Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.2.1 Polyolefins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.2.2 Polymers from Acrylonitrile, Butadiene, Styrene, and Acrylate 98
5.2.3 Polyamides (PA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.2.4 Polystyrenes (PS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.2.5 Acrylics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2.6 Polycarbonates (PC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2.7 Polyesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2.8 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2.9 Polyoxymethylene (POM or Acetal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.2.10 Fluoropolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
XVI Contents

5.3 Additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.3.1 Fillers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3.2 Plasticizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3.3 Flame Retardants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3.4 Anti-aging Additives, UV Stabilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.3.5 Nucleating Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.3.6 Lubricants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.7 Processing Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.8 Colorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.9 Blowing Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3.10 Other Polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.4 Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.5 Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

6 Injection Molding and Molding Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

6.1 The History of Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.2 Injection Molding Machines and Their Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.3 Machine Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.3.1 Clamp Force (Tonnage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.3.2 Shot Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.3.3 Screw Diameter and L/D Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.3.4 Plasticating Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.3.5 Maximum Plastic Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.4 The Injection Molding Screw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.5 Screw Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.6 The Check Ring Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.7 Intensification Ratio (IR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.8 Obtaining Intensification Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.9 Selecting the Right Machine for the Mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.9.1 Physical Size of the Mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.9.2 Calculating the Required Machine Tonnage for a Mold . . . . . . . 124
6.10 The Rule of Thumb for Tonnage Is Only an Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.10.1 Percentage Shot Size Used and Number of Shots in the Barrel 127
6.10.2 Residence Time of the Material in the Barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.10.3 Practical Methods to Find Percentage Shot Size, Shots in
a ­Barrel, and Residence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.10.4 Residence Time Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
 Contents XVII

7 Scientific Processing, Scientific Molding, and

Molding Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.1.1 Process Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.1.2 Process Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.2 The 11 + 2 Plastic Injection Molding Machine Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7.3 Process Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.4 What Scientific Molding and Scientific Processing Are Not . . . . . . . . . . 142
7.5 The Injection Molding Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.5.1 Injection, Pack, and Hold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.5.2 Speed and Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.5.3 Pressure Limited Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.5.4 Decoupled MoldingSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.5.5 Intensification Ratio (IR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.5.6 Screw Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.5.7 Back Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.5.8 Cycle Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

8 Process Development Part 1: the 6-Step Study –

Exploring the Cosmetic Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8.2 Introduction to Process Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8.3 Premolding Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.4 Storage and Drying of Resin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.4.1 Plastic Drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.5 Machine Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.6 Importance of Adding Charge Delay Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
8.7 Filling in Injection: Weight or Volume? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.8 Setting of the Melt Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.9 Setting Mold Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.10 Process Optimization – the 6-Step Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.10.1 Step 1: Optimization of the Injection Phase–Rheology Study . . 165
8.10.2 Procedure to Determine the Viscosity Curve at the
­Molding Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.10.3 How to Use this Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.10.4 Cautions and Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.10.5 Profiling of Injection Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
XVIII Contents

8.10.6 When a Short Shot Sticks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

8.10.7 Selecting Melt Temperature for Viscosity Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.10.8 Step 2: Determining the Cavity Balance –
Cavity Balance Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.11 Reasons for Cavity Imbalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.11.1 Determining the Cause of Cavity Imbalances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.11.2 Calculating Cavity Imbalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.11.3 Acceptable Level of Cavity Imbalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
8.11.4 Step 3: Determining the Pressure Drop –
Pressure Drop Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.12 Effect of Pressure Drop on the Pack and Hold Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
8.12.1 Step 4: Determining the Cosmetic Process Window – ­
Process Window Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8.13 Relationship between Cavity Balance and Process Windows . . . . . . . . . 202
8.14 The Pack and Hold Pressure Rule Not to Be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
8.14.1 Step 5: Determining the Gate Seal Time – Gate Seal Study . . . . 203
8.15 Differentiating between the Pack and the Hold Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
8.16 Hot Runner and Valve Gated Molds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
8.16.1 Step 6: Determining the Cooling Time – Cooling Time Study . . 210
8.16.2 Optimization of Screw Rotation Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
8.16.3 Why to Not Use the Rule of Thumb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
8.17 Optimization of Back Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
8.18 The Cosmetic Scientific Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8.18.1 Post Mold Shrinkage Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8.18.2 Procedure to Measure Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
8.19 Recommended Mold Function ­Qualification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
8.20 Recommended Adjustments to M ­ aintain Process Consistency
and Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
8.21 Process Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
8.22 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

9 Process Development Part 2:

Exploring the Dimensional Process via the DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
9.1 Parameters in Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
9.1.1 Design of Experiments: Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
9.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.2.1 Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9.2.2 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
 Contents XIX

9.2.3 Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

9.2.4 Designed Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
9.3 Relationships between the Number of Factors, Levels,
and Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.4 Balanced Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
9.5 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
9.6 Confounding or Aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
9.7 Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
9.8 Factorial Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.9 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
9.9.1 Tornado Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.9.2 Contour Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9.9.3 Prediction Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.9.4 Process Sensitivity Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
9.10 Using the Results from DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
9.10.1 Process Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
9.10.2 Cavity Steel Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
9.10.3 Process Adjustment Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
9.10.4 Setting Process Change Tolerances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
9.10.5 Reducing Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
9.11 The Dimensional Process Window (DPW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
9.12 Selections of Factors for DOEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
9.13 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
9.14 Collecting Shots for a Quality Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
9.15 Choosing the Highs and Lows for DOEs from the Process Window . . . . 259
9.16 DOE Application to Optimize Pack and Hold Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
9.17 Setting Acceptable Machine Tolerances and Alarms during
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
9.18 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

10 Mold Qualification Flowchart, Production Release,

and Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
10.1 Mold Qualification Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
10.1.1 Mold Function Qualification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
10.1.2 Mold and Part Quality Qualification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
10.2 Mold Qualification Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
XX Contents

10.3 Process Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

10.3.1 Process Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
10.3.2 Waterline Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
10.3.3 Mold Temperature Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
10.3.4 Setup Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
10.3.5 Operator Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
10.4 Documentation Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
10.5 Qualification Production Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
10.6 Mold Specific Troubleshooting Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
10.7 Molding Startup and Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
10.7.1 Purging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
10.7.2 Startup of a Molding Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
10.7.3 Shutdown of a Molding Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
10.8 Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
10.9 Important Equipment and Tools for Qualifications and
Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
10.10 Common Defects, Their Causes, and Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
10.10.1 Splay: What is it? How to get rid of it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
10.10.2 Defects in Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

11 Role of Mold Cooling, Venting, and Regrind in Process

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
11.1 Mold Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
11.1.1 Number of Cooling Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
11.1.2 Reynolds Number of the Coolant Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
11.1.3 Type of Coolant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
11.1.4 Series and Parallel Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
11.2 Venting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
11.2.1 Dimensions of the Vent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
11.2.2 Primary Vent Depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
11.2.3 Location of Vents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
11.2.4 Forced Venting or Vacuum Venting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
11.3 Regrind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
11.3.1 Effect of the Molding Process on the Part Properties . . . . . . . . 305
11.3.2 Using Regrind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
11.3.3 Batch and Continuous Processes of Incorporating Regrind . . . 307
11.3.4 Estimating the Amount of Regrind from
Different Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
 Contents XXI

11.3.5 Effect of Regrind on Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

11.3.6 Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

12 Related Technologies and Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

12.1 Cavity Pressure Sensing Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
12.1.1 Sensors and Output graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
12.1.2 Types and Classification of Pressure Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
12.1.3 Use of Information from the Pressure Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
12.1.4 Controlling the Process with Cavity Pressure Sensors . . . . . . . 319
12.1.5 Sensor Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
12.2 Building a Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
12.3 Concurrent Engineering in ­Injection Molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
12.3.1 The Product Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
12.3.2 The Tooling Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
12.3.3 The Mold Designer and Mold Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
12.3.4 The Material Supplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
12.3.5 The Process Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
12.3.6 The Quality Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
12.3.7 The Sales Team at the Molder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
12.3.8 Mandatory for All Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
12.3.9 Implementing Concurrent Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

13 Quality Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

13.1 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
13.2 Histogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
13.3 Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
13.4 Standard Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
­
13.5 Specification Limits and ­Standard Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
13.6 Capability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
13.7 Process Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
13.8 Statistical Quality Control (SQC) and Statistical Process Control (SPC) 342
13.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

Appendix A Materials Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Appendix B Conversion Tables for Commonly Used

Process Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
XXII Contents

Appendix C Water Flow Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Appendix D Part Design Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Appendix E Mold Design Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

Appendix F Mold Qualification Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Appendix G Regrind Tables – Percentage of Regrind

in Total Shot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
 1 Introduction to
Scientific Processing

„„1.1 The Evolution and Progress

of ­Injection ­Molding
Injection molding and extrusion are the most common techniques employed in the
manufacture of plastic products. Injection molding of plastics began as an idea by
the Hyatt brothers for the manufacture of billiard balls. The idea was borrowed
based on a patent by John Smith to inject metal castings. Since then, injection
molding of plastics has come a long way. The technique became a popular way to
fabricate plastic parts because of the simplicity of the concept, efficiency of pro-
duction, and the possibility of producing intricate parts with fine details.
The art of injection molding evolved to its present state due to a few key reasons.
The requirements of the molded parts became more stringent because of the ad-
vances in the fields of science and technology. The demand for tighter tolerances
and more complex parts increased and is ever increasing. A required tolerance of
a couple thousandths of an inch on a one inch dimension is not uncommon these
days. Parts requiring innovative designs, especially designed for assembly (DFA)
or parts molded from different materials in the same mold (multi-material mold-
ing) are now commonplace. As polymer materials were developed for injection
molding, the requirements of processing changed. The discovery of the different
morphologies of polymers and the need for better melt homogeneity in molding led
to the introduction of the injection screw. Various designs for material-specific
screws have followed since. The use of high temperature materials that have high
melting points and need high mold temperatures have led to the use of high-tem-
perature ceramic heaters and mold temperature controllers providing higher heat
capability. Innovations in electrical and electronic technologies paved the road for
machines that could be better controlled, accurate, and efficient. Response times
for hydraulic valves can be in milliseconds. All electric machines and hybrid
­machines are gaining popularity because of their consistency and accuracy. The
real time processing parameters of a molding machine can now be viewed from
2 1 Introduction to Scientific Processing

any part of the world via an internet connection and therefore machine production
can be monitored or machines can be debugged online. All these features are be-
coming a common practice among manufacturers. Even some auxiliary equipment
can now be debugged and programmed by the suppliers via an internet connec-
tion. For the machines tied into the company ERP system, automated messages can
be sent to the managers and supervisors about the machine status and quality
­issues. The need for efficiency and the requirements for advanced product features
have dictated the need for innovations in injection molding over the years.

„„1.2 The Molding Process

The actual molding process has been traditionally defined as the inputs to the
molding machine. These are the settings of speeds, pressures, temperatures and
times such as injection speeds, holding pressure, melt temperature and cooling
time. These are inputs one would set at the molding machine and record on a
sheet, commonly called the Process Sheet. However, the word process now needs to
be redefined as the complete operation that encompasses all the activities the plas-
tic is subjected to inside a molding facility−from when the plastic enters the mold-
ing facility as a pellet to when it leaves the facility as a molded part. For example,
the storage of the plastic, the control of the drying of the plastic, and the post mold
shrinkage of the part can have a significant influence on the quality of the part.
During this journey of the pellet, every stage can have a significant effect on the
final quality of the part or assembly. Naturally, understanding every stage now
becomes imperative if we would like to control the quality of the molded part.
Molding a part that meets the quality requirements is not the real challenge. The
real challenge is molding parts consistently; cavity to cavity, shot after shot, and
from one production run to another meeting all the quality requirements and with
the least amount of effort and maximum efficiency.

„„1.3 The Three Types of Consistencies

­Required in Injection Molding
The aim of developing a molding process should be to develop robust processes
that would not need any process modifications once the processes are set. Process
consistency leads to quality consistency, see Figure 1.1. We look for three different
 1.3 The Three Types of Consistencies ­Required in Injection Molding 3

types of consistencies: cavity-to-cavity consistency (Figure 1.1(a)), shot-to-shot con-

sistency (Figure 1.1(b)), and run-to-run consistency (Figure 1.1(c)). Cavity-to-cav-
ity consistency is required in multicavity molds so that each cavity is of the same
quality level as the other cavities. Shot-to-shot consistency implies that every con-
secutive shot would be identical to the previous shot, or the first shot is identical to
the last shot of the production run with the process parameters remaining the
same during the entire production run. When the process parameters from two
different runs are identical and they produce the same quality parts, then this is
called run-to-run consistency. Robust and stable processes always yield consistent
quality parts with one established process.
There can be several reasons for the three types of consistencies. A cavity-to-cavity
inconsistency could be caused because of an error when cutting the steel in one of
the cavities or by making one of the gates too large. A shot-to-shot inconsistency
could be caused because of a damaged leaking check ring at the end of the molding
screw. A run-to-run inconsistency can be caused because of a lack of a robust pro-
cess or simply because the process was not accurately or completely documented
in the previous run. The run to run consistency is the one that most companies
struggle with. This book is deals in depth with process development of robust,
­repeatable and reproducible processes.

Figure 1.1 The three types of consistencies required in injection molding

4 1 Introduction to Scientific Processing

Figure 1.1 The three types of consistencies required in injection molding (continued)

Another reason for inconsistencies and variations in the molded product is the
nature of the shrinkage of plastics. When molten plastic is injected inside a mold it
cools and freezes to form the product. There is a reduction in the volume of the
melt when it cools inside the mold. This is called shrinkage. The magnitude of
shrinkage determines the final dimensions of the part. However, this shrinkage is
 1.3 The Three Types of Consistencies ­Required in Injection Molding 5

not easily predictable and depends on a number of factors. There is a range of

shrinkage values available and that makes it difficult for a mold maker to select a
shrinkage value. For example, the shrinkage value for a low density polyethylene
is between 1.3 to 3.1 %, which is a wide range. Shrinkage also depends upon the
processing conditions. For example, higher the melt temperature, the higher the
shrinkage. Almost every processing parameter can affect the shrinkage to varying
degrees. Refer to Figure 1.2, which shows the effect of the molding parameter on
the length of the part. To increase or decrease the length of the part, several
­parameters can be increased or decreased.

• Low Melt Temp

• Low Mold Temp
• High Pack Pressures
• High Pack Times
• High cooling Times

Increase the length

Length

Decrease the length

• High Melt Temp

Length
• High Mold Temp
• Low Pack Pressures
• Low Pack Times
• Low cooling Times MOLDED PART MELT
(LESS VOLUME) (MORE VOLUME)

Figure 1.2 Effect of molding parameters on shrinkage and dimension of a part

As seen in the figure, several parameters can have effect on the part dimension
and quality. To increase the length of the part, some parameters need to be in-
creased whereas some need to be decreased. Further, the magnitudes of change in
length with change in the parameter varies from parameter to parameter. If the
molding processes are not developed with these understandings, and in case the
dimensions get out of specifications, each processor can work with any one of the
parameters. The net result being that processes that were supposedly approved
end up having completely different values in a matter of a few runs. When process
sheets are compared, for example, from two years ago, there are hardly any num-
bers that match the current settings.
It should be the goal of every molder to develop an understanding of the molding
process for the given mold. A systematic process development approach must be
followed. The result of such an approach is a robust, repeatable and reproducible
process: the 3 R’s.
6 1 Introduction to Scientific Processing

A process shown in Figure 1.3 is not acceptable because there is a lot of ineffi-
ciency in the system. Such processes result in defective parts, loss of material, loss
of time, and not to mention the time and effort put in by the molding personnel.
The parts can be remolded and shipped to the customer, however, the time and
­efforts lost cannot be recovered. The reputation of the molder is something that
can also be permanently affected.

> Parts out of Spec > QA needs to be involved > Tech needs to be involved
> Time Loss > Material Loss > Possible Customer Returns

Figure 1.3 Example of an inefficient process

„„1.4 Scientific Processing
Scientific Processing is the process of achieving consistency in part quality via the
application of the underlying scientific principles that control the parameters of
the molding process. To achieve this consistency, we must be able to control every
activity that is taking place in the process and to control every activity, we must
understand the underlying scientific principles. The goal of scientific processing
should be to achieve a robust process. Achieving robustness in each of the stages
that the pellet travels through automatically translates to an overall robust pro-
cess. The term consistency must not be confused with the parts being within the
required specifications. A consistent process will produce parts that will reflect
the consistency but the parts may be out of specifications. In this case, the mold
steel must be adjusted to bring the parts within the required specifications and the
process must not be altered.
The term Scientific Molding was coined and promoted by a two pioneers in the field
of injection molding, John Bozzelli and Rod Groleau. Their principles are widely
used today and are industry standards. Scientific molding deals with the actual
plastic that enters the mold during the molding operation at the molding press.