Welcome!

This informative blog allows plastics professionals to discuss plastics training and technology. Brought to you by Routsis Training: the plastic industry's premiere training provider.

Max Velocity Settings for Thin Wall Molding

A blog reader submitted an entry this morning…

Jean Francois
We are using a decoupled process. During fill, the pressure is set to a max pressure and should not to be reached. However, when molding thin wall parts with long flow paths, it is common to reach the maximum machine capacity pressure before reaching the expected velocity.
Question: In this case what is the best recommended process: 
1) Lower the programmed velocity to a point where requested pressure in lower than the machine capacity (with 10 to 15% margin)? 
2) Keep high programmed velocity with the maximum pressure set at the maximum of the machine capability.
My guess is solution 1) should be the best because the process will be more stable. The drawback of this solution is that we are not using the max velocity that the machine can really provide.
If I choose solution 2) any variation of melt viscosity will change the process…
So what is the best?
My Response
Your choice is correct… but I should clarify the reasoning.
In establishing a robust injection molding process, the purpose is not to use the fastest velocity possible, but to use a high velocity which provides a shear rate which is above the point of shear thinning. You should perform an In-Mold Rheology Worksheet to determine where shear thinning 
occurs in your process.
If necessary, you can try processing at a velocity consuming approximately 90% of max pressure if it provides the best appearance or performance. Just ensure that you closely monitor the fill time consistency, possibly placing a lower limit alarm on your process.
Additional Thoughts
You should always avoid a pressure limited process. If necessary, you can avoid pressure limiting the process by reducing the injection speed through the use of profiling.
-Andy 

Correcting Outdated Process Philosophies

An employee confronted his management with this proclamation he found on a website… I was asked to explain why this was an incorrect philosophy for a 21st century processor. 
Outdated Philosophy
Plastic is compressible.  We must take the injected shot past its ability to compress so that it acts like a hydraulic (non-compressible) fluid to completely fill the mould.   As the cavity fills, there is no measurable pressure because it is pushing air out.  Once filled, the plastic compresses.  At some point in time it is so compressed it is no longer a compressible fluid but responds as if it were a hydraulic fluid.  It is at this point that the cavity is fully pressurized and the process switches from fill to hold, just before the spike on the curve.  The screw is slowing down, but the pressure is now packing.  The only way to hold pressure on the part is to maintain a cushion.  The smaller the cushion is, the higher the amount of pressure we can apply on the melt.  However, if it bottoms out, there will be no pressure on the melt.  If the cushion cannot be maintained, the amount of pressure on the melt will be inconsistent.
My Thoughts
This is the philosophy behind the older, pressure controlled, machines. This process theory focuses on, and requires, a fully pressure limited process.
Aside from the reciprocating screw, velocity-control is the most important advancement in the injection molding of thermoplastic polymers… The theory above requires that you neglect this feature completely.
In 99% of the cases, such a process will be significantly less reliable and more machine dependent than a robust, velocity-controlled process with a short shot during 1st stage fill.
Additional Thoughts
There are always opposing positions… but you would be hard-pressed to find any successful consultant or educator who would subscribe to the theory espoused above.
-Andy

The Effects Of In-Mold Labelling On Polymer Flow

In a recent webinar, I received this short question…
Jeremy
Does the use of in-mold labelling have a significant effect on polymer flow?
My Response
Basically, there should be no significant change in the behaivor of the polymer. Since the polymer exhibits fountain flow, the polymer touching the label surface is stagnant, while the moving polymer passes through the center.
Additional Thoughts
Many injection molders forget that the polymer does not flow through the mold with a straight plug flow as water does. In fountain flow, the polymer comes in contact with the mold surface and begins to freeze off.
The polymer behind the flow front passes through the center of the channel until it comes in contact with the mold surface. As a result, All the polymer that fills the mold comes from the center of the flow channel as is passes by the polymer it distributes onto the mold surface.
-Andy

Purpose of Grooved Feedthroats

Recently, a webinar participant asked me this question about extrusion…

MH
Why would I consider purchasing an extruder with a grooved feedthroat?
My Response
Conveying in the feed zone will only occur if the plastic grips the barrel and slides on the screw.  Whenever it grips the screw surface and slips on the barrel, it will not move forward. Consistent feeding requires a consistent balance of friction between the barrel and the material, between the screw and the material, and between the particles of material themselves. Because a consistent balance of friction is difficult to achieve, many problems with surging, uneven output, and size variations actually begin in the feed zone.
Feeding and conveying take place a little differently in a grooved feed extruder. With a grooved feed throat, slippage between the plastic and the barrel is effectively zero. It must move forward as the screw turns, regardless of any variations in friction between the plastic and screw.
Therefor, companies who purchase grooved feedthroats to improve material conveyance. Please discuss the specific application with the machine manufacturer to ensure the feedthroat grooves accommodate the size of your pellets and regrind. 
Additional Thoughts
One interesting variation on this is with a micro-extruder. Many of the small bench-top extruders will taper and groove the feedthroat since it is the only way for the pellets to fit into the barrel and convey down the screw to be properly melted.
Another area of interest for grooved feed throats is in the newer, high capacity shot-pot style injection molding machines. Many of these use the shot-pot two-stage configuration to increase melting capacity… manufacturers are testing more traditional extruder configurations including twin screw extruders and grooved feedthroats.
-Andy

Check Ring Drift vs. Repeatability

In a recent e-mail, I received this question from one of our customers…
Jim M.
Regarding cushion, regardless of dynamic check ring tests (e.g. get 1.3%) if the machine will not hold a cushion, should the culprit be repaired?
For example, the gate freeze test shows 7 seconds & the hold time is set to 8s.   When I transfer over to pack stage, the screw drifts about .020″ during that time.  Is that an OK scenario, or is zero drift the answer?  If I put the pack time at 20s, the part still looks good, but screw keeps slowly moving & doesn’t stop.
My Response
Every check ring drifts. Tests such as the Dynamic Check Ring Repeatability Test test consistency during fill. A 1.3% variation implies that your check ring is wearing very evenly and your process should remain consistent. If the amount of drift makes you uncomfortable, it may be time to inspect and/or replace. But, a long as the drift is consistent, you should be able to maintain a robust process.
Additional Thoughts
There are a variety of check ring designs available to the molding industry… and all of them leak. A properly functioning check ring will leak consistently. If you are running a material with a very low viscosity, you may want to ensure the check ring you are using is appropriate to the applicaton and properly sized for your barrel.
-Andy