summer 2008 newsletter fd5 - amazon...

Summer 2008 SPE Injection Molding Division

Molding ViewsMolding ViewsMolding ViewsMolding ViewsMolding ViewsBrought to you by the Injection Molding Division

of the Society of Plastics Engineers

Keeping A Positive Prospective

IN THIS ISSUE:

Disclaimer: The editorial content published in this newsletter is the sole responsibility of the authors. The Injection Molding Division publishes thiscontent for the use and benefit of its members, but is not responsible for the accuracy or validity of editorial content contributed by various sources.

No. 76, Sum

mer 2008

Continued on page 3

Lih-Sheng (Tom) Turng

Dear Members:I am honored and humbled to be the Chair of

the largest division of the SPE, of which one-quarterof its members choose the Injection MoldingDivision (IMD) as their primary division. I also wantto take this opportunity to recognize and thank ourformer IMD Chair, Hoa Pham, for her outstandingleadership in the past year that has led to the adoptionof the revised IMD Bylaws, the establishment of theSPE IMD scholarship, and the creation of theEuropean liaison role.

As a professor at a major public university, andpreviously as an engineer working in the plasticscomputer-aided engineering (CAE) industry for 10years, I have a lot in common with our members.Admittedly, like many of our members, I have grownuneasy lately with the many discouraging economicreports, sky-rocketing oil prices, and news of naturaldisasters. However, for every dark cloud, there is always

a silver lining. We should keepa positive prospective and thisis why.

In Chinese, “crisis” is acompound word consisting oftwo characters : “danger”and “opportunity.” Althoughsome Sinologists have rebuttedthis wishful interpretation, Ipersonally believe we willeventually benefit from this crisis. For example, the sky-rocketing energy price will surely lead to a com-prehensive energy policy and speed up the explorationand development of alternative energy sources, whichwill help to curtail the speed of global warming. Similarly,the cost pressure of raw resins will speed up innovation,which will empower us to produce products that useless material. It will also materialize an economicallyviable environment for polymers derived from renewable

Chair’s Message 1IMD Leadership 2Ask The Experts 2ANTEC Best Paper Awards 7Call for Papers 7Best Paper Selection Criteria 8IMD Best Paper 9

A Study of the Effect of Conformal Coolingon Part Temperature

News Briefs 14Feature Article 15

How to Successfully Process Medical-Grade Resins Through Hot Runner Systems

IMD Best Student Paper 17The Effects of Graduated Versus ConstantRunner Diameters on Filling and Packingof a Plastic Part in Injection Molding

Chair’s Message

Featured Product 21Member Profile 23Student Activities Report 23ANTEC 2008 Update 24Sponsorship Opportunities 24Molding Corner: ProMold Plastics 25Machinery Corner: Arburg 26Conferences 28

Nanotechnology & Biopolymers MiniTecMarket Update 29Committee Reports 30SPE & Industry Event Calendar 31BOD Meeting Minutes 32New Members 35New Member Companies 36Membership Application 37Sponsors in this Issue 38Publisher’s Message 38


IMD Leadership

DIVISION OFFICERS

IMD Chair, Education ChairLih-Sheng (Tom) TurngUniv. of Wisconsin–[email protected]

Technical DirectorPeter GrelleDow [email protected]

Secretary,Student Activities ChairWalt SmithXaloy, [email protected]

TreasurerJim [email protected]

Past Chair,Executive Committee LiasonHoa PhamLyondell [email protected]

Chair-Elect, Alt. TreasurerDave [email protected]

Continued on page 4

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Councilor, Reception ChairJack DispenzaDesign [email protected]

Communications Chair,Website ChairLee [email protected]

TPC ’09Brad JohnsonPenn State [email protected]

Historian, Fellows &Honored Service AwardsChairLarry SchmidtLR Schmidt [email protected]

Membership ChairNick [email protected]

Nominations ChairDon AllenPhillips Chemical [email protected]

Awards ChairJim [email protected]

Engineer of Year Award ChairKishor MehtaPlascon Associates, [email protected]

Past SecretaryLarry CosmaPerformance [email protected]

MemberKen BergerMolders [email protected]

MemberJan [email protected]

MemberMichael [email protected]

New MemberPat [email protected]

New MemberRaymond [email protected]

CONTRIBUTORS

Machinery CornerMal MurthyDoss [email protected]

Newsletter Publisher,SponsorshipChris LaceyUniv. of Wisconsin–[email protected]

Bob Dealey, owner and president ofDealey’s Mold Engineering, Inc.,answers your most pressing injectionmolding questions. Bob has over 30years of experience in plasticsinjection-molding design, tooling, andprocessing.

Injection Molding QuestionsTerry Schwenk, owner and presi-dent of Process & Design Tech-nologies, LLC, answers your hotrunner questions. Terry has over 34years of experience in the plasticsindustry, and more then 22 years inhot runner technology specifically.

Hot Runner Questions

Reader Comments From The Last Issue...

Regarding bubbles in a clear polycarbonate part, Brian Crewe adds: Great article! I just wanted to addmy experiences with clear polycarbonate (such as Lexan). Usually the bubbles are inside voids as you had statedand most often occur because of poor venting. I would slow my injection velocities down in phases to help with theescapement of air/proper venting when poor venting may indeed be the root cause. I have also profiled myinjection velocity on the high end of the spectrum. I think it all depends on the part and how it’s gated. Furthermore,Bob Wegelin says that too much decompression can also cause this as well as too fast an injection speed.

Regarding injection molded plastisol fishing lures, Bob Wegelin states that plastisol fishing worms werebeing injection molded in the early ‘70s by a company in Texas using liquid silicone machines. Steve Clarke adds,“I, too, am only familiar with casting or dipping of plastisols. However, given the positioning of your column in thenewsletter, it appears that a switch to LSR (liquid silicone rubber), if cost effective, might be in order.”

IMD Leadership

Ask The Experts


Chair’s Message

Continued from page 1

resources and ultimately make them more cost-effective through mass production and major investments byentrepreneurs. A weakening US dollar may be bad for people planning a European trip, yet it has boosted theexport of US goods, reviving the manufacturing sector, and helping to slow down the growth of the structural tradedeficit. The correction of the housing market and credit crisis offer a wake-up call on how we manage or mismanageour financial wealth. As the world becomes more interconnected, better understanding of and cooperation withpeople of different cultures may prove to be more effective than military actions. All of these short-term crises,despite being painful, will bring about long-term sustainability and prosperity for many generations to come.

The objective of the SPE Injection Molding Division (IMD) is to promote scientific and engineering knowledgefor the injection molding community. The mission of this division is to further the technical education of the plasticsindustry by providing technical presentations and, as necessary, financial assistance, as well as organizational skills.With this in mind, and in view of the current environment, the main tasks of the IMD for this year include thefollowing.

• Increase the value and benefits of IMD membership by offering technical programs on thefundamentals of injection molding and emerging technologies and materials. Several recent or upcomingevents include the Innovations and Emerging Technology Conference at Penn State Erie (June 10–12, 2008),the Emerging Technologies and Materials: Nanotechnology and Biopolymers MiniTec in Milwaukee, WI(October 21, 2008), and various other technical programs being planned for the 2009 ANTEC/NPE in Chicago.These programs are in addition to our other communication methods, including this newsletter (three issues peryear), a more up-to-date IMD website, and the new IMD brochure, all of which offer a wealth of informationto our members.

• Collaborate with other international or regional polymer processing or plastics organizationsworldwide. The world is becoming increasingly smaller and closer and the only way to take advantage of thisuncharted territory is to maximize the overall efficiency of the entire organization and to become connectedwith the rest of the global village. The IMD will work with SPE Headquarters to develop programs in collaborationwith a number of plastics trade groups in China and Europe to facilitate knowledge dissemination and businessnetworking. The IMD Board has appointed a European liaison to oversee activities in this area.

• Strengthen the IMD Board of Directors by encouraging participation from our members and recruitingnew Board members. So far this year, we have appointed two new Board members (Pat Gorton and RaymondMckee) and we will invite more new blood to join us at the fall Board of Directors meeting on October 20,2008, in Milwaukee. Those who are interested in serving the IMD community may contact me by email [email protected] or by phone at +1-608-262-0586.

• Recognize the achievements and contributions of our members through the nomination andsponsorship of SPE Honor Service Members and Fellow Members. We are constantly searching forpersons who deserve recognition by the SPE or the IMD. Please feel free to contact us if you have a particularcandidate in mind, including yourself.

We hope these efforts will bear fruit and maximize the returns of the IMD membership, thus making us morecompetitive, competent, and conscientious. We look forward to seeing you at our events, or hearing from you, andconnecting with you through various other means of communication. Thank you and enjoy your reading of thisnewsletter.

Lih-Sheng (Tom) TurngChair, 2008-2009

Chair’s Message - Cont -


This column invites you to submit yourquestions or comments to our mold-ing expert, Bob Dealey, owner andpresident of Dealey’s Mold Engineer-ing, Inc. Bob has over 30 years ofexperience in plastics injection-mold-ing design, tooling, and processing.

Question:Could you recommend reference books, and

where they can be purchased, on injection moldingand injection mold building and design? My studiesat the university did not include these processes andI find myself in the position of a multi-disciplinedengineer working in microfludics, needing to betterunderstand both the mold and molding of ourproducts. ~Dr. A. Sadri

Answer:For reference books, I’d recommend the following,

broken out into categories.

Plastic Part Design:• Plastic Part Design for Injection Molding by

Professor Robert A. Malloy, ISBN 1-56990-129-5 from Hanser.

• Joining of Plastics by Jordan Rotheiser, ISBN3-446-22454-8 from Hanser.

Injection Molding:• SPE Plastics Technician’s Toolbox, edited

by Jerry Golmanavich from The Society ofPlastics Engineers.

• Injection Molding Handbook, edited byRosato and Rosato, ISBN 0-442-27815-2 fromVon Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.

• Basic Injection Molding by Wm. J. Tobin, T/CPress, Los Angeles, CA.

Injection Mold Building:• How to Make Injection Molds by Menges

and Mohren, ISBN 0-02-947570-8 fromMacmillan in Canada and Hanser in othercountries.

• Dubois & Pribble’s Plastics MoldEngineering Handbook, edited by Eric V.Buckleitner, ISBN 0-412-98951-4 from Springer.

Injection Molding QuestionsThe Society of Plastics Engineers has a bookstore

that stocks most of the aforementioned books, plus manymore that might be more appropriate, depending on yourneeds. Their website is www.4spe.org. Additionally,Hanser publishes and carries many more plastics titlesthan I was able to mention.

Magazine articles are another resource and addressspecific issues. Plastic product design experts like GlennBeall, Robert Malloy, Herbert Rees, and Ron Beck areparticularly good sources. Design News and InjectionMolding Magazine are excellent places to research.

Injection molding experts include John Boazelli, RodGroleau, Bill Tobin, and others who have great insightinto the practical aspects of injection molding. PlasticsTechnology, Injection Molding Magazine, and ModernPlastics frequently run their articles.

For mold design and building articles, John Klessand Nick Shot are very knowledgeable. Mold MakingTechnology is the major magazine covering these topics,but other trade magazines have articles on the subjecton occasion as well.

I welcome the readers of this newsletter to assistDr. Sadri with recommendations of their own favoritereference materials.

Question:Why is the sprue so thick on all of my molds with

conventional runners and gates? What can be doneto reduce the thickness and speed up the moldingcycle?

Answer:This is a common problem that has plagued injection

molders from the beginning; a big thick (plastic) spruethat frequently controls the cooling portion of the injectionmolding cycle. The sprue, its shape, and its size are reallybad news in all aspects.

Let's first revisit how we got to where we are today.The sprue in plastics is a very close relative to the sprueused in the sand casting of iron. Foundry pattern makersbecame mold makers and brought with them somestandard practices, one being the sprue bushing that had ataper of one-inch per foot. A very odd taper, with somethinglike a 2° 28' 33" included angle. It is the only place in theplastic feed system that violates the cardinal rule of plasticflow from thin to thick (or less area to greater area).

Reach Bob by emailing [email protected].

Ask The Experts


Then, the orifice ("O") dimension at the small endof the sprue bushing (where the injection moldingmachine nozzle makes contact), is designed to be0.03125 inch (1/32”) larger than the nozzle orifice sothat the nozzle slug pulls through the bushing. Earlyinjection molding nozzles always had fractional orificeopenings, mainly those starting at one-sixteenth of aninch (1/16”) and progressing larger to one-fourth of aninch (1/4”).

The sprue bushing "O" was then designed one-thirtysecond of an inch larger (1/32”) and today we have thestandard sprue bushing "O" dimensions of 3/32", 5/32",7/32", and 9/32". We've had this since at least the 1930'sor 40's. The sprue has always been an area of highpressure loss in the injection phase, and a big contributorin extending the cooling phase of the injection moldingcycle.

Bob Hatch's troubleshooting column, in InjectionMolding Magazine, frequently attributes moldingproblems to the sizing of the sprue and/or sprue bushing.Generally, his concern revolves around the filling andpacking of the part and the defects resulting fromimproper sizing, but I think the fact that plastic is flowingfrom a smaller area to a larger area is also a contributingfactor.

With that in mind, what can be done to resolve thisissue? The short answer is to replace the conventionalcold sprue bushing with a hot sprue bushing. Thiseliminates all of the sprue-related problems, the high-pressure loss, and the thick section at the intersectionof the primary runner system. The new hot sprue bushingmaintains the plastic in a molten stage during the coolingphase of the cycle.

All suppliers of runnerless molding systems (hotrunners), in addition to other mold component suppliers,have hot sprue bushings that can be purchased, and inmost cases installed, in the same bore as the conventionalsprue bushing. There could be some minor work in thelocating ring area to make the hot sprue bushing fit, suchas machining a channel in the top clamp plate to routethe wires, and then the mold is good to go.

A temperature control module is required to connectthe sprue busing heater and thermocouple and then yoursprue bushing problems are behind you. Additionally,you will either have less of the runner to regrind, or ifyou cannot use regrind, a healthy material savings.

Question:We received a mold that was built in South East

Asia for an over cap that has a very shinny cavitysurface finish. We are molding a copolymerpolypropylene (PP) in dark brown. The molded partshows what is best described as an "orange peel orlumpy" affect, something that you might associatewith a painted finish on a metal part. All attemptsto change processing conditions are fruitless. Ifanything, higher melt and mold temperatures, fasterfilling, and higher packing pressures make thecondition worse. Any ideas on how to get an evensurface appearance on our over caps?

Answer:Polypropylene, in most cases, will exhibit a nice

glossy surface and I can't recall ever seeing an unpaintedPP part with what I visualize as an "orange peel" surface.Typically, a painted plastic part like body panels onCorvettes might exhibit this phenomenon. However, PPis rarely, if ever, painted.

Without knowing more about the material or theprocessing conditions, I'm going to jump to the conclusionthat something about the surface finish is causing theproblem. Two items that make me suspicious is where themold came from and your description of the mold finish.Mold steels that are either not hardened and/or notconsistent in alloy dispersion, will, on occasion, result in asurface that while shinny, is not entirely smooth.

Additionally, if during the preliminary benching andpolishing operations the surface is not properly prepared,the steel surface can actually distort when subjected tothe pressure and heat of the felt used to hold either thediamond or polishing compound power tools utilizedfor the gloss surface you describe.

Visually inspect the mold surface to see if the affectis present on the cavity surface. Often the reflective andshinny surface makes it difficult to determine if surfaceirregularities exist. Dulling down part of the cavity surfacemight help. Obviously, precautions must be taken touse something that is easily removable so as not to harmthe surface. A light cooking oil spray should do the job.

I would have a hardness check made on the steelcavity as well. Stay about 12 mm (1/2 inch) away fromthe actual cavity and take several readings. A cavityhardness reading of less than 44 Rc is an indicator thatthe cavity material could distort during an overzealouspolishing operation.

Ask The Experts


Hot Runner QuestionsThis new column invites you tosubmit your questions andcomments to our hot runner expert,Terry Schwenk, owner andpresident of Process & DesignTechnologies, LLC. Terry has over

Hot Runner QuestionQuestion:

What is the best way to install hot tip gates to give the best gate vestige condition?

Answer:Gates should be EDM (electrical discharge machining) to a Charmille finish of 24-26 for best results. If heavy

EDM is used, cavity steel must be stress relieved to reduce or eliminate the possibility of steel fractures.

90°

Cavity Steel

For demonstration purposes, let’s assume a finished gate size of 0.035 inches. The gate angle can vary dependingon hot runner vender recommendations and should be burned to create a gate orifice of 0.034 inches. This willresult in a gate size slightly larger then 0.034 inches (0.0345 to 0.035), with a rough finish. In most cases, this issufficient. If the customer wishes to have all gates identical and sized, further machining will be necessary. This canbe accomplished with a multi-fluted carbide cutter with a 0.035 inch diameter boring straight through the center ofthe gate, giving a final gate diameter of approximately 0.0354 inches. This will leave a straight land of 0.001 to0.002 inches at the gate area. Gate land should never exceed 0.002 inches.

When recessing a gate below the molding surface, always avoid using a spherical radius as this creates a weaksteel condition and poor cooling around the gate area.

When installing the gate, first determine thefinished gate size.

Refer to picture above for the proper way to recess a gate.Try maintaining a steel cross-section of not less than 0.050inches on each side of the gate.

Assuming that the plastic part is replicating a mold surface condition, your available correction option is to goback to the benching and polishing finishing operation. The cavity surface will have to be worked with stone orabrasive paper to get below any surface irregularities. Then the gloss will need to be reapplied. Most experiencedmold polishing companies should be able to assist you.

Ask The Experts

34 years of experience in the plastics industry, includingmore then 22 years of specialized experience in hotrunner technology. Terry can be reached via email [email protected].

Ask The Experts


ANTEC 2008 Best Paperand Best Student Paper Awards

Approximately 61 papers were presented in InjectionMolding at the 2008 SPE ANTEC in Milwaukee,Wisconsin. Thank you for all of your submissions andwe look forward to reviewing more papers next year!Here are this year’s winners and finalists.

BEST PAPER

ANTEC-0976-2008: “A Study of the Effect ofConformal Cooling on Part Temperature,” byJonathan Meckley and Robert Edwards,Pennsylvania State University at Erie, The BehrendCollege.

BEST PAPER FINALISTS (not listed in any order )

ANTEC-0482-2008: “Effects of ProcessingParameters on Shrinkage Uniformity of Injection-Compression Molded Part,” by Han-Xiong Huang,Kun Li and Sha Li, Center for Polymer ProcessingEquipment and Intellectualization, College ofIndustrial Equipment and Control Engineering, SouthChina University of Technology, Guangzhou,People’s Republic of China.

ANTEC-0676-2008: “Injection-Molded PolymerScaffold Foams,” by Adam Kramschuster and Lih-Sheng Turng, Polymer Engineering Center,Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universityof Wisconsin–Madison.

ANTEC-0722-2008: “Coupled FEA Simulation of theDemoulding Procedure of Injection Molded Parts,”by Walter Michaeli and Bernhard Helbich, Instituteof Plastics Processing at RWTH Aachen University(IKV), Aachen, Germany.

ANTEC-0970-2008: “Experimental Study on theEnergy Efficiency of Different Screw Designs forInjection Molding,” by Jeff A. Myers of BARR Inc.,Onsted, MI, and Mark Ruberg, Ritch Waterfield,Mark Elsass, and Steve Kelsay of Milacron Inc,Batavia, OH.

BEST STUDENT PAPERS

1st Place: ANTEC-0785-2008: “The Effects ofGraduated Versus Constant Runner Diameters onFilling and Packing of a Plastic Part in InjectionMolding,” by Gregory L. Swanson and MatthewWeller, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College.

ANTEC / NPE 2009:Call For Papers

The year 2009 will be the first time ever thatSPE’s ANTEC and SPI’s NPE will be held at thesame time and place, combining the world’s largesttechnical conference with the largest trade show in theUnited States for the plastics industry. ANTEC runsMonday through Wednesday, June 22–24, whileNPE runs the entire week, June 22–26. Just abouteverybody who is anybody in the plastics industry willattend this conference. This will be a greatopportunity for you and your organization toshowcase what you are doing in the arena of injectionmolding.

Therefore, I would like to invite you to present apaper at ANTEC. There are two formats that can bepresented: technical and commercial. For moreinformation, including a template which is very helpfulwhen planning and writing your paper, as well as theWrite Now brochure, which has the criteria used forevaluating and judging all submitted ANTEC papers,please visit: http://www.4spe.org/conf/antec09/09callforpapers.php.

In addition, please let me know if you have anyideas about special sessions or topics that you wouldlike to see presented. I can be reached at the emailaddress [email protected]. With your help, we can makethis great event even better!

Important dates to keep in mind:• September 1, 2008: Deadline for

mandatory abstract (one paragraph)on-line submission.

• November 14, 2008: Deadline for on-linepaper submission.

• January 9, 2009: Deadline for final paperrevisions.

2nd Place: ANTEC-0435-2008: “Investigation ofComparative Stress Distributions in ThermoformingVersus Injection Molding,” by Thomas W. Shoaf,Department of Industrial Studies, University ofWisconsin–Platteville.

3rd Place: ANTEC-0744-2008: “The Effects of RadiusedCorners on Melt Flow Imbalances,” by Patrick J. Harrisand Patrick T. Miller, Penn State Erie, The BehrendCollege.

Best Paper Awards


The Selection Process for the Injection Molding Best Paperby Peter F. Grelle

At the recent ANTEC held in Milwaukee, WI, a number of attendees had asked how a Best Paper inInjection Molding is determined. The purpose of this article is to provide background on how a Best InjectionMolding Paper is selected from the vast number of papers submitted to ANTEC each year.

Since 1995, the Injection Molding Division of SPE has awarded the Best Paper Award at ANTEC. In1999, a new review process was set in place for the judging, scoring, and acceptance of papers for the ANTECInjection Molding technical program. From this process, the top papers are selected for presentation atANTEC, and the paper with the highest score is selected as the Best Injection Molding Paper. This article willdescribe how the papers are judged and what criteria are used for selecting the best papers.

In December of each year, a committee of four reviewers—all of whom are members of the InjectionMolding Division—meets at an off-site location to review the papers submitted for the upcoming ANTEC. Eachpaper is read and reviewed as a group. Then, the paper is discussed as to content and each reviewer gives atotal score. A final score is given based on the average of the four reviewers’ total scores. The seven criteriaused to determine the total score are as follows:

1. Originality. Does the paper contain sufficient new results, new applications, or present a new theory?

2. Practicality. Does the paper contain sufficient practical information that can be used immediately. Forexample, can anyone who reads the paper apply this in their injection molding facility to improveproductivity, profitability, etc.?

3. Quality. Is the paper of good quality and free from errors? Also, is the paper free of misconceptions orambiguities?

4. Clarity. Is the subject matter clear and concise? Also, does it give sufficient, authentic references?

5. Graphics. Are the tables and/or figures clear and relevant with accurate, descriptive captions? Do thetables and/or graphs comply with the rules presented in the ANTEC Write Now Guidelines?

6. Paper Style. Is the English used in the write-up of the paper satisfactory?

7. Paper Title. Is the title appropriate, descriptive, and reflective of the content?

Of the seven criteria listed above, emphasis is placed on originality, practicality, and quality. Deductions aremade from the paper for the use of any and all trademarks, trade names, and company logos used within thecontext of the paper. At the completion of the paper review, the paper with the highest final score is awarded theBest Paper in Injection Molding. This award is presented at the Injection Molding Division Reception heldduring ANTEC week. The complete Write Now criteria, which are used for evaluating all submitted ANTECpapers, can be viewed online at http://www.4spe.org/conf/write_now07.pdf.

The Injection Molding Division is welcoming papers to be presented at the 2009 ANTEC to be held inChicago, Illinois. If you are interested in submitting a paper for ANTEC and have any questions, please feel freeto contact the 2009 ANTEC Technical Program Chairperson, Mr. Brad Johnson, or myself.

Best Paper Criteria


Abstract

This project examines the temperature differences be-tween parts molded in P20 and rapid tooling inserts. A P20insert was used as a baseline to compare the two sets ofrapid tooling inserts. One of the rapid tooling insertshad the conventional cooling lines similar to the P20 in-sert. The other rapid tooling insert had conformal cool-ing lines. The temperatures were recorded as the partscame out of the mold.

Introduction

The reduction of part warpage and cycle time is oneof the “Holy Grails” of the plastics injection molding indus-try. Unfortunately, when cycle time is reduced, partshave a tendency to warp because they are hotter asthey leave the mold. If a part’s temperature could be low-ered more quickly than what is currently done with con-ventional cooling lines, a reduction in cooling time could beachieved.

One of the causes of part warpage is the non-uniformcooling of the part. This typically happens when thecooling lines do not follow the part geometry. In semi-crys-talline materials there could be differences in the percentof crystallinity throughout the part if the cooling is notuniform.

The conventional cooling lines used today are simplydrilled into the mold inserts. In complex geometry it is diffi-cult to get those conventionally machined cooling lines tofollow the geometry. Conformal cooling lines are coolinglines that follow the geometry. Computer-Aided-Engi-neering (CAE) software should be used to optimize thecooling lines and their placement.

The first study examines the part temperature distri-bution between the different cooling line layouts. A coolingtime study was also performed to illustrate the differencesbetween the cooling line layouts. There were three sets ofinserts used in these studies. A P20 Conventional insertwas constructed so the other two inserts could be com-pared to something that is commonly used in industry. Theother two inserts were constructed on a rapid prototypingmachine. The first of these inserts was constructed withthe same set of conventional coolinglines. This insert wasused to show the thermal conductivity differences of therapid prototyping material. The last insert was constructed

A Study of the Effect of Conformal Cooling on Part TemperatureJonathan Meckley and Robert Edwards

Pennsylvania State University at Erie, The Behrend College

with conformal cooling lines. The part temperatures weretaken with an InfraRed (IR) camera.

A semi-crystalline material and an amorphous plasticmaterial were used in this study to show the behavioraldifferences. The semi-crystalline material was HighDensity Polyethylene (HDPE). The amorphous materialwas Polycarbonate (PC).

Background and Theory

The direct tooling process used to make the injectionmolding inserts used in this study was the ProMetal ink-jet based process. This is a process that was developedat MIT and commercialized in 1997 [1]. A print headis used to drop liquid binder onto a bed of stainless steelpowder (Figure 1). The print head sprays droplets ofbinder to fill in the part. The droplets bind with theadjacent droplets and they bind to the layer below. Anydownward facing surfaces, such as overhangs, uncon-nected layers, and undercuts, need to be supported [2].The remaining powder, that was not printed with binder,provides the support for the part. When the part is com-plete, it is pulled from the powder bed and cleaned. Anypowder that is in any internal passages is evacuated bygravity or a spray of air [3]. The spherical powderflows easily out of the cooling channels. The partsare dried with a high energy lamp. It is then taken to anoven to partially sinter the material. The part is par-tially sintered to reduce the amount of shrinkage. It is theninfiltrated with bronze to reach full densification. Thedrying and sintering process causes some non-uniformshrinkage of the part. The geometry is oversized toaccount for this shrinkage. A machining operation isneeded to take these near net shape parts and makethem to size [4].

The goal of cooling is to remove heat quickly and cool-ing lines should be economical to construct. At times thesetwo attributes can conflict with each other. It ischeaper and quicker to machine straight drilled cooling lines.In complicated part geometries, these straight drilledlines may not always follow the part geometryevenly. This may create cool spots in the mold andchange how the part shrinks. To achieve proper cooling,several levels of cooling lines should be used. Thespacing between the cooling lines should be 2.5 to 3.5 timesthe diameter of the cooling line. The lines should be

IMD Best Paper


spaced to keep the temperature as uniform as possible.The spacing from the mold wall should be 0.8 to 1.5 timesthe spacing between the cooling lines [5].

Designing of the cooling lines is usually done after mostother mold details are finished. Placement of gates, vent-ing, core pins, and ejection are considered first becausetheir placement in the mold is essential to making a goodpart. In some cases, cooling is put in quickly withoutregard to how it will affect the part. However, because ofits importance to part quality, cooling should be consid-ered earlier in the design and concurrently with the othermold features. Mold cooling analysis should be run to opti-mize the cooling design. There are few of these analysisperformed on new molds. Without this type of analyses,it is guesswork as to whether the cooling layout will beeffective.

Conformal cooling lines follow the part geometry inthe mold. Optimum placement will make for uniformmold temperatures. The use of mold cooling analysis andFEA is essential to designing these types of cooling lines. Itwould be easy to put in too many cooling lines to in-crease cooling. During the filling and packing phases therecould be as much as 150 MPa pressure inside the moldcavity. The force from this pressure needs to get pastthe cooling lines without bursting through. In the injectionmolding process the pressure is cyclical and it is generallyrecommended that the stresses in the mold are less than10% of the tensile yield stress. As the part starts tocool, the pressure is reduced. This cyclical force will fa-tigue the insert if it is not designed correctly. In orderto have the best cooling line placement that will have thebest structural integrity, the use of both mold cooling analy-sis and FEA is essential.

Cooling is affected by several material and geometryconsiderations and it is important to balance these to get themost performance out of the inserts [6]. As the cool-ant flows through the cooling lines, it picks up heat. Ingeneral, it is best to keep the temperature increase toless than 5.0°C. In long cooling channels, areas towardsthe end of the cooling channels will not have as muchheat removed. The flow of the coolant is importantbecause more heat can be removed if the flow is tur-bulent. Reynolds Number is a measure of laminar or turbu-lent flow. Reynolds Numbers below 2000 show lami-nar flow. Above 4600 it is turbulent flow. Between thosetwo numbers is a transition from laminar to turbulentflow. An optimum Reynolds Number is 10,000. Above thisnumber, there is little gain in heat transfer [7]. Polymermaterials have poor thermal conductivitycompared tometals. Each polymer family has a unique thermal conduc-

tivity. This affects how quickly a part can give up its heat.Because of the different structure of each polymer family,the temperature to melt is distinctive to that family.

Conformal cooling lines can be machined, but thatwill increase the build time and the cost. The amount ofmachining to make the two pieces could be more thandouble of a conventional insert depending on the com-plexity of the geometry. Molds with conformal cool-ing could not be used with geometry that would requirethin cores or some complex geometry.

Equipment and Method

There were three sets of inserts constructed for thesestudies. The P20 insert was constructed with con-ventional cooling lines. It can be seen in Figure 2 and Fig-ure 3. The first insert constructed with rapid prototypingwas the S4 Conformal insert. It had the same cooling linelayout as the P20 Conventional. The last rapidprototyping insert was the S4 Conformal. It had conformalcooling lines and can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

The part was designed to be a challenge to conven-tional cooling lines. The part was designed with two cylin-drical features that are linked tangentially. There is adual slope on the top surface. It is high on the back and onthe right side of the part. The baffles on the core side shoulddo a good job of cooling the cylindrical features. It is thedual sloped top surface that poses a challenge to the con-ventional cooling lines.

A Husky Hyletric 90 injection molding was used to moldthe parts. A thermolator was used to control the tem-perature of the mold inserts. A FLIR A20 IR camera wasused to measure the temperatures of the parts. A Pro-fessional Equipment T 7350 handheld IR pyrometer wasused to measure part temperature in one specific location.A Burger and Brown – Smart flow Tracer was used tomonitor the flow of water through the inserts.

The HDPE is LG Chemical’s Lutene ME9 180.The PC is GE Plastics’ Lexan 124R.

The process for each material was optimized on theP20 conventional insert at a cooling time of 18 s. Onceset, the process was run for 15 minutes to allow themold and inserts to get up to temperature.

The parts were collected as they fell from themachine and were placed into a jig. It took about threeseconds from the time the parts dropped out of the molduntil they were in the jig. Three cycles were recorded andthe best one was selected to use in the study.

The cooling time was lowered to 4 s for the HDPEand 10 s for the PC. Three more parts were recorded.

IMD Best Paper


Presentation of Data

In each picture, the part and mold outline have beenadded for a reference. The part geometry was sized andplaced to give an accurate representation of the part ge-ometry.

The results for the P20, S4 Conventional, and S4 Con-formal cooling line inserts with HDPE and PC can be seenin Figure 6 through Figure 13. The results on the left are at18 s and the results on the right are at 4 s (10 s for PC). Theresults are from the infrared camera and were taken threeseconds from the time the mold started to open until itwas fully open.

The cooling time results for HDPE can be seen in Fig-ure 14. The S4 Conventional is the hottest of the three in-serts. The S4 Conformal is the coolest with the P20Conventional falling in between. The same results can beseen with the PC in Figure 15.

Discussion of Results

The P20 part temperatures for HDPE, interior and ex-terior, showed a nearly uniform temperature distribu-tion. The interior was within 2°C and the exterior was within4°C at 18 s. The ejector pin was recessed into the mold by2 mm. This created a short solid boss in the part. Becausethere was a lot of surface area around the boss, it allowedmore heat to be pulled out of the part. The oppositewas seen on the exterior of the part. Where the bossintersects the main part body, there is a hot spot becausethere is a localized thicker region. It takes longer tocool this region and shows up on the surface oppositethe boss.

The S4 Conventional parts showed the same trendand were 1°C warmer at 18 s.

The S4 Conformal parts were 6°C less on the interiorand 7°C less on the exterior than the P20 parts. The tem-perature was uniform in both the interior and exterior.The exterior was 1°C hotter than the interior.

The exterior of the P20 PC parts had a hotter tem-perature on the upper step of the top surfaces. The coolinglines are a little further away at the back of the upper step.The ejector pin can be seen as a hotter section on the exte-rior. The S4 Conformal has a more uniform tempera-ture than the P20 part. The S4 Conformal parts are7°C cooler than the P20 parts for PC.

The S4 Conventional cooling time study for HDPEat a cooling time of 18 s showed at 4°C higher temperaturethan the P20 Conventional. The S4 Conformal was 4°Clower than the P20 conventional. Even though the S4has a lower thermal conductivity than P20, the conformalcooling lines were able to cool the parts more quickly. Us-

ing temperature as the criteria for the end of the injec-tion molding cycle, a cycle time reduction of 3 s to 4 scould be realized. In PC, the S4 Conformal was 4°Cbelow the P20 Conventional at 16 s. A cycle time reduc-tion of 4 s could be realized.

Conclusions

Even small reductions in cooling time can result in sig-nificant savings even for a medium run production. Althoughrapid tooling isn’t quite ready for medium or long runproduction, it shows the promise of cycle time reduction. Inthis study, the conformal cooling inserts had lower and moreeven temperature than the P20 Conventional inserts.The part temperature was 6°C to 7°C lower than theP20 inserts with HDPE and 7°C lower with PC. Based onthe cooling time study, there could bea 3 s to 4 s reduction in cooling time with HDPE and 4 swith PC. If the rapid tooling inserts were constructedwith a material with better thermal conductivity, a greaterreduction in cooling time could be acheived.

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to John Arlotti and ExOne for providingthe rapid tooling inserts. Many thanks go to my wife,Kim, Lucy Lenhardt and Shelley Readel for their constantrevisions.

Special thanks go to Rick Coon for machining the in-serts and helping plug leaks in the inserts. Thanks alsogo to Glen Craig and Matt Baker for helping to plug leaks inone set of inserts.

References

1. Gebhardt, Andreas, Rapid Prototyping, 1st Ed, 2003,Hanser, p 181.

2. Sachs, Emanuel, Wylonis, Allen, Cima, Guo,Production of Injection Molding Tooling with conformalCooling channels using the Three Dimensional PrintingProcess, Polymer Engineering and Science, 40 5 (2000),p 1233.

3. Sachs, Emanuel, Wylonis, Allen, Cima, Guo,Production of Injection Molding Tooling withconformal Cooling channels using the ThreeDimensional Printing Process, Polymer Engineering andScience, 40 5 (2000), p 1234.

4. Gebhardt, Andreas, Rapid Prototyping, 1st Ed, Hanser,pp 181-183.

5. Rees, Herbert, Mold Engineering 1st Ed, Hansen, p 273.6. Rees, Herbert, Mold Engineering, 1st Ed, Hanser, p 260.7. Shoemaker, Jay, Moldflow Design Guide, 1st Ed,

Hanser, p 167.

IMD Best Paper


IMD Best Paper

Figure 1: ProMetal process.

Figure 3: Conventional core cooling lines.

Figure 2: Conventional cavity cooling lines. Figure 4: Conformal cavity cooling lines.

Figure 5: Conformal core cooling lines.


Figure 6: P20 part interior results (HDPE). Figure 7: S4 conventional part interior results (HDPE).

Figure 8: S4 conformal part interior retults (HDPE). Figure 9: P20 part exterior results (HDPE).

Figure 10: S4 conventional part exterior results (HDPE). Figure 11: S4 conformal part exterior results (HDPE).

Figure 12: P20 part exterior results (PC). Figure 13: S4 conformal exterior results (PC).

IMD Best Paper


Figure 14: HDPE cooling time study. Figure 15: PC cooling time study.

Kishor S. Mehta was recognized as a DistinguishedMember at the ANTEC SPE Celebrates Banquet. Thisdistinction is the most prestigious offered by SPE. It isheld by all SPE Presidents, and a few others, electedby SPE Past Presidents, by virtue of their outstandingachievements or professional eminence. Kishor hasserved the Society as a member of the SPE ExecutiveCommittee, chair of both the Product Design &Development Division and the Injection MoldingDivision, and President of the Rochester Section. Hehas been committee chair for numerous SPE committeesover the years, is an SPE Fellow and Honored ServiceMember, and was the recipient of the 2004 SPEPresident’s Cup.

The Madison Group to Acquire Bunch Engineering

Madison, WI - The Madison Group is pleased to announce the acquisition of business operations of BunchEngineering. The Madison Group, founded in 1993, offers consulting services for plastic failure analysis, designand optimization, as well as simulation of thermoset compression molding, using its proprietary software, Cadpress.The addition of capabilities offered by Bunch Engineering, a well-respected company in the injection-moldingindustry, will further The Madison Group’s considerable simulation competence and expertise in the plastics industry.

Kishor Mehta Honored

IMD Best Paper

News Briefs

Kishor Metha being awarded the Distinguished Memberaward by Dr. Vicki Flaris, 2007-2008 SPE President.


How to Successfully Process Medical-Grade Resins Through Hot Runner Systemsby Terry Schwenk, Process & Design Technologies, LLC

There are a variety of medical grade resins on themarket today, including polypropylene, polycarbonate,polyester, polyethylene, polystyrene, thermal plasticsalsatians, and polyurethane. Medical-grade resins requirespecial attention when processing through a hot runnersystem. The reason for this special attention is that manyproduct applications are in sensitive areas of drug deliveryor surgical procedures where the plastic part needs to retaina high degree of its properties in order to perform correctly.Thus, it is paramount that care and attention be paid to theprocessing of the resin so as not to destroy the materialproperties during the process. It is equally important tounderstand the process limitations of the resin in order toselect the proper hot runner system to process the resinnot only without degrading it, but also to ensure part fillingand packing without defects. There may be some instanceswhere a full hot runner system may not be the best choicefor a particular application. In this case, a hot runner to acold runner may be a viable option.

The key to successful plastic part manufacturing througha hot runner system is a thorough understanding of theresin properties being processed. Only when there is anunderstanding of the material properties can one properlyselect and operate a hot runner system successfully withmedical grade resins. Since processing these thermal plasticresins revolves around heating and cooling the resin, wewill only concentrate on the thermal properties and howthe heat is transferred in and out.

All thermal plastic resins can be categorize into threemain areas as related to their thermal properties: crystalline,semi-crystalline, and amorphous. Crystalline solids are aclass of solids that have regular or nearly-regular crystallinestructures. This means that the atoms in these solids arearranged in an orderly manner.

Solids are divided into two main types: crystalline solidsand amorphous solids. These two are differentiated on the

basis of their physical properties. Crystalline solids are of adefinite shape and have a definite melting point, whileamorphous solids have no definite shape and melt at arange of temperatures. Crystalline solids are also knownfor their anisotropic nature, whereas amorphous solids areisotropic. Anisotropy is the property of being directionallydependent, as opposed to isotropy, which meanshomogeneity in all directions. Alternatively, anisotropy canbe defined as a difference in physical properties(absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) for somematerials when measured along different axes. An exampleis the light coming through a polarizing lens. Othergeneralizations include a crystalline solid being opaque,whereas amorphous solids tend to be transparent.

Most medical applications do not allow for regrindmaterials so hot runner systems are an absolute necessityin reducing manufacturing costs while remaining profitable.There have been several myths surrounding hot runnersystems, one being that hot runner systems degrade resins.This is a false statement. What degrades resin is heat,residence time, dead spots, and excessive shear. A properlyselected and installed hot runner system does nothing morethen convey the resin from the molding machine injectionnozzle to the cavity. It doesn’t add or take heat away. Itdoes not induce excessive shear. It doesn’t have dead spotswhere material can degrade.

General speaking, crystalline-based resins are lessshear sensitive then amorphous-based resins. This isbecause crystalline-based resins have a very specific meltingpoint, at which point, the resin viscosity drops off sharply,reducing the chances of high shear. Amorphous resins aremore susceptible to shear because they don’t have a specificmelting point and viscosity remains high until flow occurs.

Now that we have a basic understanding of plasticresin thermal properties, we need to understand the flowcharacteristics of molten plastic. All plastics experience

Feature Article


Feature Article

laminar flow. When pushing plastic through an orifice orpipe, the material in the center of the channel flows at afaster rate then the material near the channel wall where noflow occurs. Unlike an extrusion process where the flowof material is continuous, injection molding is a pulse flowprocess, where flow starts and stops in a continuousprocess. In the injection molding process, the resin againstthe channel wall has no flow during the flowing process.However, it does eventually move through the hot runnersystem, but at a slower rate then the flow at the center. Thisis because at the moment no flow is occurring, the moleculesbecome entangled. When flow occurs, the moleculesagainst the channel walls are dragged into the flow streamby the flowing molecules because of the entanglement.Another reason for the eventual slow movement of themolecules against the channel wall is that polymer moleculechains are very long. Thus it is possible for one end of amolecule to reside at the channel wall and the other end tobe in the center of the melt stream. When flow occurs, theportion of the molecule at the center of the melt stream willmove at a faster rate then the end of the molecule chain atthe channel wall. The portion of molecule moving will pullthe portion that is not moving off of the channel wall. If thismovement is too excessive or too rapid, the molecule chainwill break. This is called “shear”. If enough of the moleculechains are broken, the properties of the resin will change.Some of the changes that occur are more serious thenothers. Molecular changes can affect viscosity, which inturn can change part density, shrinkage, fill rate, dimensions,structural strength, cycle times, and aesthetics. More severemolecular damage will result in material degradation.

Processing conditions that affect shear include thefollowing: material temperature, fill velocity, hot runner gatetype and size, hot runner melt channel size and length,temperature uniformity through the hot runner system (i.e.,hot and cold spots), accurate temperature monitoring,balance flow, and mold venting.

In selecting the hot runner system for your medicalapplication, make sure your hot runner supplier has a goodunderstanding of and experience with the resin you will beusing for your application. Most hot runner suppliers canproduce sample parts and may be able to run your resin ina test mold. Don’t be bashful in asking how much experienceyour hot runner supplier has had with your particular resin.

Almost all hot runner suppliers have their own specialtyand standard hot runner components for their product line.The best suppliers can fine tune their products to fit yourneeds, such as changing the manifold bore channels or

customizing the gate tip. Any customization will cost extramoney, but you will gain a high performance hot runnersystem for your medical application. If you don’t feelcomfortable with the answers you get from your hot runnersupplier, seek out processing professionals that have hotrunner experience and can make recommendations. Moneyspent to avoid disaster is the best money you can spend.

In a small hot runner system, almost all resins will see aminor loss of material properties, but well within the partspecifications. However, the larger you go with the hotrunner system (or the higher number of cavities you have),the more exposure to shear, residence time, and high flowrates, thus the more chance for the resin to lose enough ofits properties to start producing parts out of specification.Only the best hot runner suppliers understand this and makeadjustments to the hot runner system to keep from exposingthe resin to too much shear, residence time, heat, and deadspots.

In conclusion: Know your resin properties, understandhow your resin flows, understand the limitations of yourresin, and select a hot runner supplier that has experienceand an understanding of the resin being processed.Understanding the resin properties and flow characteristicswill yield terrific benefits during the processing phase. Youwill be able to know the limitations on the filling velocity,allowing you to set the fill rates, pressures, and materialtemperatures that are most conducive to the resin limitations.Or at the very least, you will understand why the part is notperforming as anticipated after being molded. The bottomline is that if you require extreme process conditions to filland pack out your part. there is either a severe deficiencyin the hot runner system or you are asking too much fromthe hot runner for the resin being processed. Knowing theseitems will ensure a successful experience with processingmedical-grade resin in hot runners systems.


The Effects of Graduated Versus Constant Runner Diameterson Filling and Packing of a Plastic Part in Injection Molding

Gregory L. Swanson and Matthew WellerPenn State Erie, The Behrend College

Abstract

This paper presents a study of the effects of variouscold runner systems on filling and packing of a plasticpart in injection molding. A comparison betweengraduated and constant runner diameters was the main focusof the paper. The study centered on the battle betweenminimizing runner volume and minimizing pressure drops.While many theories exist supporting one runner systemover another, this research attempted to collect enoughdata to prove when each should be used.

Introduction

For many years, the runner system has been far toolittle the focus on creating quality plastic parts. Many factorssuch as; shear-induced imbalances, molded-in stresses,short shots, degradation, and other quality diminishingvariables have been due to inadequate runner systems.This study focused on the specific attempt to sort outthe proper application between the graduated diameter andconstant diameter runner system. Both, mold designersand plastic engineers, have constantly battled betweenminimizing the volume of the cold runner system andmaximizing the filling and packing capabilities for partquality. The struggle between cost and quality is thereason for the on-going efforts.

Too small of a constant runner diameter may causethe pressure drop, between the beginning of the runnersystem and the end-of-fill, to become too large to pack oreven fill the part out. On the other side of the argument, aconstant runner with too large a diameter may use morematerial than was needed. In attempt to balance theconflict, a graduated runner system can be used. The termgraduated describes a runner system that starts with thelargest diameter at the sprue and steps down indiameter at each branch [3]. The smallest diameterbranch is nearest the gate. This study examined if andwhen a graduated runner system should be used.

Background and Theory

Seventy percent of the world’s plastic injection moldscontain a cold-runner system. A cold-runner system is a

series of channels that provides a means of melt deliveryfrom an injection molding machine’s nozzle to the moldcavity. A two-plate cold-runner system, which wasused in this study, is composed of a sprue, runner system,gate, and cavity. Diameter size for the runner system playsa huge role in the pressure that it takes to fill out the parts ininjection molding. The runner for this experiment willneed to feed eight circular disk cavities, 50.8 millimetersin diameter and 2.46 millimeters in depth. From thesprue, the melt delivery channels branches off into theprimary runner branch. This causes the material toflow in two opposite directions, perpendicular to thesprue. This same style intersection occurs between theprimary and secondary runners, creating four separateflow channels. The last split between the secondaryand tertiary branches creates the eight flow channels neededto fill all eight cavities. This style runner branching isknown in the plastics industry as a geometrically balancedrunner system [3]. Geometric runner branching is anexcellent way to assist with filling out the cavities atnearly the same time. Equal pressures, injectionvelocities, and fill times within each cavity are desired tominimize part variations. As mentioned above, the diameterof the runner directly influences the filling and packingpressure drops between the cavities and thenozzle of the injection molding machine. Handcalculations can be used to estimate pressure drops withthe following equation [2].

ΔP = (8QLn)/πr4 (1)

Where “ΔP” is the calculated pressure drop, “Q”is the volumetric flow rate, “L” is the total flow length,“n” is the viscosity of the material, and “r” is the radius ofthe runner channel. This equation visualizes the exponentialimpact of the runner diameter on pressure build up. Themain focus of this study was to attempt to betterunderstand the runner diameter impacts, and ultimatelypart quality, using three different runner systems inserts. Allrunners consisted of a parabolic cross-section with a 10°draft [3].

The first insert (Runner #1), had a constant runnerdiameter of 1.0 millimeters larger than the cavitythickness. A general guideline of a 1.0 to 1.5 millimeters

IMD Best Student Paper


runner diameter larger than nominal part wall thickness iswidely used in industry [3]. This runner system istypically stereotyped to be less efficient than graduatedrunners. Constant diameter runners have advantages anddisadvantages compared to graduated runner systems.For example, greater packing pressures may be requiredif the tertiary runner of both was held constant, as can becalculated using the pressure drop equation. This meansthe constant runner diameter remains constant from thecavity back to the nozzle, while the graduated runnerincreases in diameter at each runner branch. The constantdiameter runner requires a larger amount of injectionpressure during filling. Although it requires an increasedamount of pressure to fill and pack, it does use less materialin the runner. If less material is present in the runner, itrequires less cooling time, thus reducing the overall cycletime.

A second insert (Runner#2), contained a graduatedrunner system with the tertiary runner diameter (runnernearest the gate), being 1.0 millimeters larger than thecavity thickness. The secondary and primary runnersincreased accordingly, using common methods for sizinggraduated runner branches [2].

dfeed = dbranch x N 1/3 (2)

The equation variables are represented as: dbranch, thedownstream branch runner diameter, dfeed, the runnerdiameter feeding dbranch, and N, the number of branches inthe runner system. Graduated runners are labeled as moreefficient runner systems than constant diameters becausethey focus on the pressures and volumes one branch at atime. Although it may appear that an increase in injectionpressure will be required as the runner diameter begins todecrease, the diameter at the gate remains 1.0 millimeterslarger than overall part thickness. Graduated runnersshould experience lower injection and packing pressuredrops through the runner when comparing runnervolumes, due to its design.

The third insert (Runner #3), consisted of a constantdiameter runner with an equal volume as Runner #2. Byusing the same volume of material as Runner #2, it allowedcomparison between pressures while the volume was keptconstant. While this runner is still deemed inefficient, itshould require less injection pressure compared to Runner#1. It was also predicted that Runner #3 should still coolfaster than Runner #2, due to the smaller cross-sectionalarea in the primary branch.

Two materials were used in the experiment, onesemi-crystalline and one amorphous. The amorphous

material used in the study was a High Impact Polystyrene(HIPS). The semi-crystalline material was an unfilled ExxonMobile Polypropylene. All plastic materials undergo anamorphous phase when molten. As the plasticcools afterfilling and packing, it then begins to solidify and crystallize.Amorphous materials do not experience the extent ofcrystallization as compared to a semi-crystallinematerial. This crystallization is the largest factor as towhy parts shrink in the mold. It is believed that thesemi-crystalline material was more sensitive to therunner insert changes because of this.

Experimental Procedure

A two-plate cold-runner mold with eight circular diskcavities was used for the experiment. Two pressuretransducers were also used for the experiment. Onetransducer was located in the nozzle and the other, inone of the inside cavities near the gate. The pressuredifference between the two transducers represented thepressure drop through the runner system. It is understoodthat longer flow lengths and shear-induced imbalances [1]may cause variations in the pressure drops between theinside and outside cavities. This difference was notobserved in the experiment. Three runner inserts createdfor the experiment were interchanged as one of theexperiment variations. The runner inserts are described inmore detail in the “Background and Theory”. Twomaterials were used with each of the runner inserts. Amatrix of three injection velocities and three packpressures were combined with the runner insert andmaterial variables. The matrix included a high, low, andoptimum setting for each of the two processingparameters. A total of 30 variable combinations wereprocessed as shown in Table 1.

A process optimization was run for each material beforeparts were produced for measurement. A 2-stage moldingset-up was used for optimization [4]. There were sevenmain steps to this process: set clamp, 95% full part atmaximum velocity, optimize injection velocity, set packpressure, set hold time, minimize cycle, and optimizeother parameters. Injection velocity and pack pressure wereboth used as variables, but the optimized parameters wereused as starting points. To optimize injection velocity, a fewsteps were taken. First, with the parts filling to 95%, enoughpack pressure to just fill the cavities out was added. Next,the machine was set to automatic to keep the residencetime in the barrel constant. Hydraulic pressure attransfer and the fill time at ten to fifteen differentinjection velocities were recorded. An initial injection



velocity of around 6.35 millimeters/second was usedand stepped in equal increments to a maximum injectionvelocity of about 203 millimeters/second, or until the filltime was between 10 and 18 seconds. Relative viscosity(transfer pressure x fill time) versus relative shear rate (1/fill time) was plotted. The optimum injection velocitycorresponded to the first point past the bend where therelative viscosity flattens out. Optimizing pack pressurewas less subjective. Withthe part filling at 95%, the hold time was set long enoughto freeze the gate before the pressure was released. Thecooling time was reduced as much as the hold time wasincreased. The pack pressure was adjusted to reach justfilling; then, adjusted to flash the part out. The hold pressuremidway between the two previous pressures representedthe optimum. The pressure to just fill with no sinks andjust before flashing consisted of the low and highpacking parameters, respectively.

After optimization, scrap parts were produceduntil the machine was stabilized. Once the machinewas warmed up and producing parts with consistentweights and dimensions, ten shots for each of thepossible combination of variables were processed. Whilevarying the injection velocity, the optimum packpressure was held constant and vice versa. A total of300 shots were collected for data (30 variablecombinations times ten shots each). A diametermeasurement transverse to the gate location was takenon an inside cavity and an outside cavity for each shot.Groups of four parts (inside group and outside group)were weighed for comparison. Pressure drops werealso recorded using the nozzle pressure when thematerial first hit the cavity.

Results

The results were divided into five groups explainedin Table 1. Figures 1 through 6 illustrate these resultswith the group number organized horizontally acrossthe x-axis of each figure. The y-axes contain one ofthe three dimensions measured in the study; the partdimension, part weight, or pressure drop. Lastly, eachrunner used was represented by a different coloredcurve on each figure.

Part Dimension Results

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the effects of the runnersand processing variables on the part dimensions for

polyethylene and polystyrene, respectively. The largesteffect on part dimension for the semi-crystalline materialwas the low pack setting. Runner #1 consistentlyproduced the largest part dimension, with Runner #3 mostlyin the middle, and Runner #2 having the smallest partdimensions for polypropylene. Polystyrene had somewhatsimilar trends to polypropylene when comparing partdimensions. A few differences seen while using polystyreneincluded the large dimensional differences between thehigh and low injection speeds and the large gap betweenRunner #1 and the other two runners when using thelow pack. Figure 2 shows that besides the low packingvariable, each of the runners have very similar diameterswithin each group.

Part Weight Results

Figures 3 and 4 show how the part weights wereaffected by both the runner changes and theadjustments to the processing variables. In the semi-crystalline material, packing had a much larger affect onpart weight than did the injection velocity. In fact, theinjection velocity seemed to have little to no effect onthe part weight for this material. Furthermore, thegraduated runner was affected the most with the high pack.The amorphous material results, from Figure 4, show thatthe part weights were affected by the packing and injectionvelocity, but mostly by the low packing. The runnerchanges also had a consistent influence on partweight. For polypropylene, parts produced usingRunner #2 with a high pack had a much higher weightthan any other combination of variables. The part weightresults for polystyrene were fairly consistent from runner-to-runner. Runner #3 weighed the most throughout all fivegroups, with Runner #2 next, and Runner #1 weighingthe least.

Pressure Drop Results

Figures 5 and 6 represent the pressure drops throughthe runners for polypropylene and polystyrene,respectively. The trends between the two materials werevery consistent. Both figures show that Runner #1 had thehighest pressure drop through the runner whencompared to the other two runners. The least amountof pressure drop was always found in Runner #2, thegraduated runner system. Runner #3 followed the sametrends as the other two, with the pressure drops always



remaining in the middle. The high and low packing variablesdid not seem to affect the pressure drops much at all.The injection velocities, on the other hand, did have asignificant influence on the pressure drops. Figures 5and 6 both show that the higher injection velocity created ahigher pressure drop and the lower injection velocity createda lower pressure drop.

Discussion

Overall, the part dimension and weight results did notcome out as fully expected. Due to the smallestdiameter of Runner #1 through the entire length ofthe runner, it was expected that this runner would containthe smallest part dimension and part weight. This waspredicted because the smaller the diameter that the materialmust be pushed through, the higher the pressure drop. Thiswas proven in the pressure drop plots. Figures 5 and 6show that Runner #1 did create the largest pressure drops.Figures 1 through 4 showed that other outside factors hadmore of an influence than did the pressure dropthrough the runner when considering part diameterand part weight. In fact, all three runner types followedthe predicted trends of pressure drops in the runner forboth materials. One outside factor that could have affectedthe part dimensions was orientation of the moleculescausing more or less shrinkage in the direction transverseto the gate. This is supported by the fact that the largestchangesof part dimension were due to changes in packing,which is typically used to minimize shrinkage. Part weightalso did not seem to be significantly influenced bywhich runner was used. Again, the packing out of the partsappeared to have the largest impact on the part’s final weight.The part weight of polystyrene seemed to be slightlyinfluenced by which runner was used. This was becausethe amorphous material required much higher pressuresto push the material than did the semi-crystallinepolypropylene. With these higher pressures come morelimitations on how much material can be packed. If thelimitation was close enough to the machine’s capacity,the impact could surface as differences in part weight.

Conclusion

Although special circumstances may always appear,the attention toward graduated runners may be overly

stressed. This study correlated the influences of pressuredrops on both part dimensions and part weights. Neitherof these variables seemed to be significantly affected byfairly drastic changes in pressure drops. This suggests thatgraduated runners may be used in industry when they arenot necessarily needed. Again, by using a graduatedrunner, more material was used than in its comparableconstant diameter runner system. Although theamorphous polystyrene seemed to follow more of adimension and weight trend, these trends did not appear tobe significant enough to justify using additional materialneeded for a graduated runner system. Ultimately, it appearsthat the constant diameter runner system, similar toRunner #1, was more efficient than the graduated runner,similar to Runner #2, when all variables were considered.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank John Beaumont atPenn State Erie for his overall guidance on the project, BradJohnson at Penn State Erie for his assistance with thepressure transducers and data acquisition equipment, BrianYoung at Penn State Erie for his assistance with plasticsprocessing, and Rick Coon at Penn State Erie for hisassistance with the machining work.

References

1. Beaumont J. P., Young B. A., and Jaworski, M., MoldFilling Imbalances in Geometrically BalancedRunner Systems, 1-3 (1998).

2. Beaumont, J. P., Nagel, and Sherman, SuccessfulInjection Molding, 116-117 (2002).

3. Beaumont, J. P., Runner and Gating DesignHandbook, 78-79, 82, 113, 134 (2004).

4. Johnson, B., Save to This One, 1-3 (2004).

IMD Best Paper


Table 1: Test sample collections for each of the materials.

Table 2: Processing parameter values for each of the materials.

The Plastics Technician's Toolbox® - Injection Molding (#0192)Practical Information for Plastics Professionals, 2002

Cost: $195 (member) / $295 (non-member)

The 7-drawer set of the Plastics Technician's Toolbox® - Injection Molding is a profes-sional development tool for technicians of all levels, as well as a resource for engineers.The all inclusive Toolbox is also used by several 2-year colleges and apprenticeshipprograms as a curriculum base. A team of 47 talented authors, from a cross-section of industry and academia,collaborated to share their knowledge and invaluable on-the-job experience.

The comprehensive Toolbox contains all the nuts and bolts required for creating and maintaining a high level ofproductivity in a plastics processing facility --from setup to troubleshooting. Materials, machinery, molds, quality,problem solving, and new technologies are brought together with handy reference tables, equations, photos, illus-trations, and charts in a casual, easy-to-understand format. SPE and its talented members championed this unique,one-of-a-kind resource.

http://www.4spe.org/training/products/0192.php


Featured Product


Figure 1: Polypropylene part diameter comparisons. Figure 2: Polystyrene part diameter comparisons.

Figure 4: Polystyrene part weight comparisons.

Figure 6: Polystyrene pressure drop comparisons.

Figure 3: Polypropylene part weight comparisons.

Figure 5: Polypropylene pressure drop comparisons.



Member Profile

Injection Molding Division Member ProfileBy Larry Cosma

Chris LaceyIMD Newsletter Publisher

Meet one of the newest members of the Society and the Injection MoldingDivision, Chris Lacey. You probably have read her name already, since she has beenthe IMD Newsletter editor/publisher for about the past year.

Chris received both a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and an M.S. in BioMedicalEngineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The focus of her master's degreewas "novel methods of drug delivery."

Conversant in computers, she worked for five years as a training coordinator andcomputer consultant at the Computer-Aided Engineering Center. From there she workedtwo years for Menasha Corporation as a manufacturing engineer. Chris then picked upsome plastics experience at PowderJect Vaccines, where she was a medical devicedevelopment engineer for seven years, working with injection molded plastic parts. Currently, Chris works withour IMD Chairman, Tom Turng, where she has been Assistant Director of the Polymer Engineering Center, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, for the past 4 years.

Chris is married with two children, and has some very unusual hobbies and interests. She enjoys geocaching,a fun pastime which I am going to learn more about, amateur photography, which I already know a lot about, andwriting fiction, children's books, and articles on autism. As for her interest in autism, Chris founded the non-profitorganization Autism ALERT, Inc., which is dedicated to training first responders in recognizing and interaction withpersons with autism, educating caregivers in keeping their loved ones safe, and promoting and developing communitypartnerships (see www.AutismAlert.org for more information). In addition to Autism ALERT, Inc., Chris startedand runs Select Autism Merchandise, LLC (www.SelectAutismMerchandise.com/index.php), or S.A.M., whichwas named for her autistic son. Here she developed safety packs for autistic individuals and their families, as wellas autism interaction kits for first responders, hospitals, and schools.

Chris is a key person in the IMD organization. As the publisher of the newsletter, she is responsible forcopyediting the articles and putting together our newsletter three times each year. She is also the person to contactfor sponsorships in the newsletter, an important element of IMD funding for training and scholarships each year.

Student Activities Reportby Walt Smith

The Injection Molding Division (IMD) takes pride in the participation and involvement of students. As such, ithas many initiatives to further this goal. The IMD offers a $3000 scholarship that is awarded annually to a graduateor undergraduate students. Applicants must have experience in the injection molding industry, such as coursestaken, research conducted, or jobs held. The scholarship is awarded through the SPE foundation.

The IMD’s presence at ANTEC 2008, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, deserves mention. The IMD sponsored theStudent Awards Luncheon that replaced the Student Awards Reception this year. The luncheon, held Wednesday,May 7, was well attended, and recognized student authors and award recipients. There was also a Student/CasinoWelcome Reception, which will was held on Monday, May 4, to offer students, industry leaders, and members ofacademia a chance to mingle and further the networking experience. The IMD also sponsors the Injection MoldingReception at ANTEC. This event is typically heavily attended by students, and this year was no exception. This isyet another opportunity for students to network and meet professionals in their chosen fields. Last but not least, theIMD contributes $1000 to the Student Author Travel Fund to aid students in attending ANTEC.

It is strongly recommend that all students get involved. The networking opportunities alone will make it worth it.

Member Profile

Student Activities Report


ANTEC 2008 Updateby Dave Karpinski

ANTEC 2008 was held May 4–8, 2008, atthe Midwest Airlines Center in Milwaukee,Wisconsin. It was another great conference for theplastics industry! The Injection Molding Divisionpresented 48 papers in 8 different podium sessions.In addition, 15 papers were presented during theInteractive Sessions.

The other exciting news from ANTEC 2008were the announcements of the Best Paper and BestStudent Paper awards. The Best Paper wasawarded to Jonathan Meckley and RobertEdwards, Penn State Erie, School of Engineering,for their paper entitled: “A Study of the Effect ofConformal Cooling on Part Temperature.”Congratulations to Jonathan and Robert!

Did you know that Injection Molding Magazinesponsors a $1000 cash award for the Best Paperfrom the Injection Molding Division? Submit yourpaper for ANTEC 2009 and compete for the cashaward and the distinction of being named the BestPaper in the division!

The Best Student Paper was awarded toGregory Swanson and Matthew Weller, PennState Erie, Plastics Engineering Technology, for theirpaper entitled: “The Effects of Graduated VersusConstant Runner Diameters on Filling andPacking of a Plastic Part in Injection Molding.”Congratulations to Gregory and Matthew!

You should also know that the Injection MoldingDivision awards cash prizes to the Best StudentPaper authors and the 2nd and 3rd place Best StudentPaper authors! The Division awards $1000 total,with $500 awarded to the Best Student Paper, and$250 each to the 2nd and 3rd place papers.

The Best Paper, finalists for Best Paper, BestStudent Paper, and Best Student Paper runners-upwill be published in the Injection Molding Divisionnewsletter in this and upcoming issues. If you missedthe presentation of these papers at ANTEC, lookfor them in the newsletter.

Finally, please plan to submit your work in theform of a Technical or Commercial paper forANTEC 2009 which will be held in conjunctionwith NPE 2009 in Chicago, June 22–24, 2009!Abstracts are due in early fall of 2008. Final papersare due in November of 2008. Stay tuned for moredetails about the deadlines.

Become A Sponsor Today

The newsletter for the Injection Molding Divisionof SPE is issued three times a year to more than5000 members worldwide. This readership iscomposed of individuals just like YOU who areinvolved in all aspects of injection molding, fromproduct design and engineering, through processingand product quality. These editions are madepossible through the generous support of thesponsors shown in this newsletter. An index to oursponsors, with website addresses, is printed on thelast page of every issue.

SPONSOR’S FEE SCHEDULE

Three issues/year

1 page $3,300/yr.1/2 page $1,900/yr.1/3 page $1,260/yr.1/4 page $960/yr.1/10 page $350/yr.

AD SIZE (W X H in inches)

1/10 page: business card1/4 page std: 3-3/8 by 4-7/81/4 page horiz: 4-3/4 by 3-1/41/3 page square: 4-3/4 by 4-3/41/3 page vert: 2-1/4 by 101/2 page horiz: 7 by 4-7/81/2 page vert: 4-3/4 by 7Full page: 7 by 10

No bleeds permitted on any ad.

ISSUE DEADLINESSpring Issue: February 20Summer Issue: June 20Fall Issue: October 20

For information on sponsorship of futureissues, please contact our publisher:

Chris Lacey608-263-5963

[email protected]

Sponsorship OpportunitiesANTEC 2008 Update


ProMold Plastics – From Old World Craftsmanship to Modern Technologyby Mal V. Murthy, Ecogenus Group LLC

ProMold Plastics is a contract manufacturerspecializing in quality mold making and close toleranceinjection molded components. Riccardo Puglielli, anItalian immigrant, founded the company in 1967 as aone-man Tool and Die shop. Since 1999, ProMold hasbeen run by his son, Richard Puglielli. High qualitycraftsmanship and unwavering customer service formedthe foundation of the company and continues to serveas the principles guiding the company’s growth.

Promold has the ability to micro mold small precisionparts weighing less than 10 mg to larger parts up to 500g, using state-of-the-art molding equipment. They alsoperform metal injection molding (MIM), as well as manysecondary operations such as inserting, sonic welding,pad printing, and assembly. All molds are customdesigned and built in house for a variety of marketsincluding medical, electronic, and general manufacturingfor companies across the world.

The company celebrated its 40th anniversary lastyear with record sales and was a finalist in the UCONNFamily Business of the Year Award. In 2007, ModernPlastics magazine named Richard Puglielli as one ofthe “25 Notable Processors” around the globe formaking a positive impact within the plastics industry. Inaddition, the company has received much positive pressin industry trade publications for its business practices.

ProMold thoroughly trains all of its employees inthe processes and practices they will be performing,creating a strong team that works together. Thecompany’s quality management system is certified toISO 9001:2000 and they are a UL recognized molder.Their fully equipped quality assurance laboratory housesthe latest OGP Smartscope™ optical measuringequipment and they perform FMEA (failure mode andeffects analysis), GRRS (gage repeatability and

reproducibility studies), and capability studies on criticalapplications.

The company recently launched a custom-builtknowledge base software to capture knowledge at thefloor level. This software contains a unique andcontinually growing database that allows employees tosearch for quick remedies to common problems. Thishelps to share the knowledge that employees get onlythrough experience.

ProMold Plastics routinely performs operationalmetrics analysis with dramatic results. “We took a newapproach for continuous improvement and reallyempowered our people to manage the business. Nowwe get meaningful, accurate data to help us improveoperations,” said President Rick Puglielli. The programworks by collecting data in certain fundamental areasof the business: rework time, scrap rates, on-timedelivery, inventory accuracy, tool room commitments,in-process and final inspection results, and customercomplaints. From this program alone, rework wasreduced from 3800 hours annually down to 90 hoursand scrap rates were reduced by over 70%. In fact,every area of the business has seen improvement—fromon-time delivery to quality.

The company recently moved to a modern facilityin Portland, CT, with over 40,000 sq. ft. of floor spaceto accommodate both current and future growth.

ProMold Plastics provides their customers with thebest of both worlds in today’s mold making and moldingindustry by offering them the personal attention theyexpect from a family business, together with the structureand resources they expect from a larger corporation.

For more information, visit their website atwww.promoldplastics.com. Their Tech Tips and UsefulLinks pages contain a lot of great information as well.

Molding Corner


Machinery Cornerby Mal V. Murthy, Ecogenus Group LLC

Starting with this issue, we will present a brief interviewwith top executives of major IM machinery manu-facturers to keep our readers better informed aboutmanufacturers, technology, and the business. In thisissue, we feature Arburg, and an interview with Mr.Friedrich Kanz, President and CEO of Arburg USA.

Give us a brief company profile and history ofArburg.

In 1923, Arthur Hehl founded the Hehl Companyin Lossburg, Germany. In 1943, the company wasnamed Arburg. Arburg started making small hand-operated molding machines for encapsulating metal forcamera and flash units for their own use. In 1956, seeingthe large demand for good molding machines, Arburgstarted manufacturing molding machines with only 10employees and selling them to outside customers.

Today, Arburg is still based in Lossburg, in the NorthBlack Forest region of Germany, and is “at homeanywhere” in the world. With over 2000 employeesworldwide, Arburg is truly a pioneer in the moldingmachine industry. Arburg is represented by its ownorganization in 23 countries at 31 locations, and bytrading partners in more than 50 countries. Service,quality, support, and customer proximity are theinternationally recognized pillars of the Arburg successstory.

Eugen Hehl and Karl Hehl, second generation familymembers and principals/managing partners, built Arburginto a globally recognized leader in the realm of injectionmolding machines. In recognition of their life’s work andtheir outstanding services to the plastics industry, Eugenand Karl Hehl were awarded the Business ManagementAward by the SPE last year at the 2007 ANTEC inCincinnati.

Now Arburg is being led into the future by the thirdgeneration of the family, with managing partners JulianeHehl, Renate Keinath, and Michael Hehl, with the long-standing duo of Eugen and Karl Hehl continuing theirinvolvement in a mentoring and consulting role. Thiscombination of the past with the continuity, innovation,

and vision that has grown over the decades characterizesthe philosophy of Arburg.

All Arburg products are produced at the centralproduction facility in Lossburg, Germany, with aproduction area of about 1.4 million square feet. Withover 60% vertical integration in manufacturing, Arburglays the foundation for its own superior product quality“Made by Arburg – Made in Germany.”

Its commercial success can also be read fromArburg Sales, with €363 million in 2006 and over €400million (approx. $620 million USD) in 2007.

Arburg today is a true technology-driven companyoffering a very versatile product range. Their injectionmolding machines range from a clamping force of 14 to620 tons, including the Multilift-robotic system, fullyintegrated, and operated through machine controls andcomplex automation solutions. This machine includesall currently needed drive technologies, such as hydraulic,hybrid, and full electric, and basically all requiredworking positions.

With a very versatile product range, Arburg is amajor player in special applications such as multi-component injection molding, powder injection molding(PIM), molding of thermosets, elastomer and liquidsilicone (LSR) molding, encapsulation of inserts, etc.,covering a wide range of customer markets.

Arburg has installed over 15,000 machines in theUS since the early 1960s. They have a fully integratedspare parts inventory in the US and can even supplyspares for the oldest machines in the US as long as theycomply with OHSA and other safety standards.

Your comments on Arburg technology.

Among other technical advances over the years,Arburg has developed its own proprietary controller—Selogica—a very powerful controller being used on allArburg molding machines that offers the customer thehighest possible flexibility in regards to the moldingprocess and sequence.

The Allrounder Alldrive (A) electric machine seriesis a market-leading technology designed for high-

Machinery Corner


performance molding while offering a wide range ofmodularity through a choice of comprehensive optionsand drive flexibility for cost-effective manufacturing. Theinherent benefits of the clamp design, direct drive, andliquid cooling technology make the Alldrive series idealfor fast-cycling, high-tech applications. In addition, theyare naturally suited for clean-room molding.

What is your vision for Arburg in the next one tothree years?

Arburg is and will remain a privately held, family-owned company. This has tremendous advantages inregards to middle and long-term strategies. Thecompany will continue with its focus to offer state-of-the-art technology and bring it to the market.

Arburg will focus on customer service supportedby highly trained technical specialists to form a verystrong relationship with our customers. In addition tothe technical center in our corporate office in CT, wehave expanded our presence in the US, with technicalcenters in Elgin, IL, and Irvine, CA. Together with ourown service vehicles, we have a total of 57 employeesthat form a customer/technical service network, whichprovides complete technical support for all injectionmolding issues. This unique expertise will become evenmore important in the future in the very competitiveplastics industry.

How do you see the competition from cheapimported molding machines?

In the US, the main suppliers of injection moldingmachines are from the US, Germany, Austria, Italy,Switzerland, and Japan. The significant majority of theAmerican molders are buying molding machines withan established brand name. The more technical anddemanding the application, the fewer suppliers are atthe table. As much as price is always important, thetechnology comes first more often, especially indemanding, complex parts. Only with the correspondingadvanced technology, machine reliability, and timelysolution to molding issues can the American moldercompete with the so-called low cost countries. In thisregard, cheap is certainly not the solution, as the cost-performance ratio needs to be in balance.

Brief professional background of Mr. FriedrichKanz and career path to current position:

Mr. Friedrich Kanz completed college in Germanyin 1981 and through 1992 worked in various engineeringpositions and as a Territory Manager in East Europefor Turn-Key-Projects. In 1993, he joined Arburg andbuilt up a sales and service organization in East Europe(Czech and Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland, andTurkey). Prior to his relocation to the US in 1999, hewas Director of Overseas Sales. In addition, he ran theArburg operation in the Czech Republic and Hungaryas CEO. Mr. Kanz has been the President & CEO ofArburg Inc., Newington, CT, since 1999 and is fullyresponsible for the entire Arburg organization in NorthAmerica.

Contact Information:Friedrich Kanz, President & CEO, Arburg Inc.125 Rockwell Road, Newington, CT 06111Phone: 860-667-6500Fax: 860-667-6522email: [email protected]: www.Arburg.us

Machinery Corner


Things on the Road

The spot resin markets were verybusy again this past week, as the secondquarter essentially came to a close.Similar to the type of activity we haveseen in previous weeks, fresh producersupply was limited, resellers were happysuppliers of their warehoused resin intothese higher prices, and processorschased all reasonable resin offers. Risingenergy and feedstock costs continued todrive commodity resin prices, with mostgrades adding at least $.02/lb this week.

With several US resin plants currentlysuffering production problems, supplymade available to the spot market isselling quickly. Polyethylene contractsrose $.05/lb in June and producers areseeking a further $.07/lb increase for July.Polypropylene contracts on average rose$.08/lb in June and producers are nowlooking for at least $.08/lb and as muchas $.18/lb in July. Polystyrene also sawcontract prices rise in June, with GPPSup $.04/lb and HIPS up $.06/lb; thoseproducers seek to increase July contracts$.03 - .04/lb in July.

Crude Oil volatility continued thispast week, with prices reaching a high of$142.26/bbl Friday in electronic tradingon Globex before ending the week at$140.21/bbl. Natural gas spent anotherweek mostly above $13/mmBtu,ultimately closing at $13.198/mmBtu onFriday. Ethane and Propane pricescontinue to rise, keeping upwardpressure on the Olefin markets.

According the PetroChem Wire, spotEthylene and Propylene prices gainedmore than $.05/lb during June. AlthoughJune monomer contract prices were notyet completely settled, initial higheragreements were made, with some

Market UpdateJune 30, 2008

holding out for even larger increases. Resin producers face anothermonth of high energy and feedstock costs ahead. July monomercontracts have been nominated to increase by as much as $.15/lb andone Ethylene producer issued another price increase based on CrudeOil average prices for July.

The cost situation is not unique to the US; higher resin pricesaround the globe have encouraged traders from Europe, Asia andSouth America to keep buying from the North America. If the exportmarket continues to exhibit strength, US producers will likely maintaintheir pricing power and continue to succeed passing through their highermonomer costs.

A note on Monomer prices: We have seen a major shift in the wayresin markets operate in 2008. Quickly escalating energy and feedstockcosts have made resin producers firm in their efforts to raise prices.Resin contract price increases are now much more closely linked toMonomer contract prices. Spot resin trends closely follow Monomertrends on a daily basis. More and more, commodity resin prices areabsolutely dependent on the price of Ethylene and Propylene.

Market Update

To read the complete market update, which is published weekly, visit:http://www.theplasticsexchange.com/Research/WeeklyReview.aspx


The SPE Injection Molding Division (IMD) consists of various permanent and ad-hoc committees to continue todrive the IMD as a vibrant division within SPE while serving the IMD members and the plastics community througha variety of activities. The Committee Reports column covers a few of the many interesting and exciting activities ofthe various committees. Please refer to the IMD Board of Directors meeting minutes included in this issue to learnmore about other exciting news and events.

Committee Reportsby Dave Karpinski, IMD Chair-Elect, and Peter Grelle

Technical Program Committee Report

2008 Automotive Injection Molding TopCon.The IMD, in partnership with the Carolinas Section,held the 2008 Automotive Injection Molding TopConin Greenville, SC, from March 24–26, 2008. Theconference included speakers from Beaumont,PRIAMUS, CGI, MOLDFLOW, Plastics TechnologyMagazine, 3D Systems, Trexel, Bayer Film Americas,Invision, Multiject, Siebenwurst GmbH, DemagPlastics Group, Engel, and Krauss Maffei. Presentedtopics included new process technologies, materials,and tooling used in automotive applications. Theconference was very successful with very positivecomments from many of the 66 attendees. Both theIMD and the Carolinas Section are considering makingthis an annual event.

Innovations & Emerging Technology Conference.This conference was held June 10-12, 2008, at PennState University’s Behrend College in Erie,Pennsylvania. This event was co-sponsored by theInjection Molding Division.

Emerging Technologies and Materials:Nanotechnology and Biopolymers MiniTec.The Milwaukee Section is holding a MiniTec at theWyndham Milwaukee Airport and ConventionCenter, Milwaukee, WI, on October 21, 2008. Theconference will bring together executives and expertsfrom companies such as DuPont, Exponent, Ford,NanoCor, Phillips Plastics Corp., RTP Company,USDA, and various universities to talk about emerginginjection molding technologies and materials relatedto nanocomposites and biobased polymers and theirapplications. This event will feature 11 speakers andtable top exhibits, and is co-sponsored by theMilwaukee SPE section. For more information,download the flyer at http://www.4spe.org/communities/divisions/d23-081021MiniTec.pdf

Bylaws Committee Report

Hoa Pham, Kishor Mehta, and Larry Schmidt haveput forth significant effort over the past year to reviewand modify the bylaws governing the IMD. This teamthoroughly reviewed each and every clause in the bylawsand made significant changes where appropriate toensure that the IMD has an accurate and viable basisfrom which to operate the division. The revised bylawshave been accepted by the BOD. The bylaws serve asan excellent document for current and new Directors ofthe IMD to inform and guide them in their duties andthe operations of the Division. The bylaws are also anexcellent resource for anyone interested in any aspectof the operation and organization of the IMD. Thankyou to Hoa Pham, Kishor Mehta, and Larry Schmidtfor their outstanding work!

Membership Committee Report

The Membership Committee, under the leadershipof Nick Fountas, recently developed a pamphlet topromote membership in the IMD. The pamphlet doesan excellent job in articulating the benefits to joining SPEin general, and the IMD specifically. It also includes amembership application form to make it very easy forone to sign up to join the Society. If you are planning tohold an event, or if you plan to attend an event andwould like some collateral to promote membership inthe IMD, please contact Nick Fountas via email [email protected]. He will be happy to provideyou with a supply of pamphlets.

Sponsorship Opportunities

The Injection Molding Division is looking for partnersto sponsor upcoming TOPCON or MINITEC events.If you are interested, please contact Chris Lacey,Newsletter Publisher, at [email protected] or 608-263-5963.

Committee Reports


August 2008

Plastics Analysis Workshop & Prevention SeminarsAugust 11-15, 2008

Chicago, Illinois USA

SPE 2008 Asia 3-Day SeminarAugust 13 -15, 2008

Taichung City, TAIWAN

Extrusion of Engineering Plastics SeminarAugust 18-20, 2008

Mystic, Connecticut USA

September 2008

FOAMS™ 2008September 8-11, 2008

Charlotte, North Carolina USA

SPE Automotive Composites ConferenceSeptember 16-18, 2008Troy, Michigan USA

CAD RETEC® Coloring into the Next DecadeSeptember 21-23, 2008

Dearborn, Michigan USA

Thermoforming Conference® 2008September 20-23, 2008

Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

International Meeting on Radiation Processing Sept. 21-25, 2008

London, UNITED KINGDOM

Kunststoffen 2008 ExhibitionSeptember 24-25, 2008

Veldhoven, NETHERLANDS

October 2008

Automotive TPO ConferenceOctober 5-8, 2008

Sterling Heights, Michigan, USA

Annual Blow Molding ConferenceOctober 7-9, 2008

Bartlesville, Oklahoma, USA

New Approaches in Polymer CharacterizationOctober 13-14, 2008

Wimington, Deleware USA

Vinyltec - Vinyl Raw Material Overview and UpdateOctober 13-15, 2008

Rosemont, Illinois USA

SPE Thermoset Madison ConferenceOctober 23-24, 2008

Madison, Wisconsin USA

http://www.4spe.org/training/eventcalendar.php

e-Learning Center

SPE’s e-Live® Presentations are delivered to your desktopin real time via the Internet. All you need to participate isInternet access and an open phone line. After you register,SPE will email you the web address and phone number youcan use to see and hear the presentation and participate inthe live question and answer session.

Characterization of BiosorbableMedical Implant Materials

July 17, 2008

Evaluation of Conductive Fillers for Shape-MemoryActuation by Resistive Heating

July 24, 2008

REACH: Keeping it Manageable...Keeping it Strategic

July 30, 2008

Serving as an Expert inLitigation-Oriented Projects

July 31, 2008

Improving Adhesion Performance Between Low-Surface-Tension Composites and Dissimilar Substrates

August 6, 2008

The Future of the Plastics Industry: Decline or Growth?August 7, 2008

Polymer Thermal AnalysisAugust 14, 2008

New Technologies in Pick-and-PlaceRobotics for Thermoforming

August 21, 2008

Material Handling and Conveying 101:Maximizing Resin Savings and Efficiency

August 28 , 2008

Lessons Learned From an UnconventionalDesign for Lean Six Sigma Development

September 11 , 2008

Nanocomposite Polypropylene Filmfor Food Packaging Applications

September 25 , 2008

Multi-Property Optimization of Nylon-EVOHExtrusions Produced Controllably by Chaotic Blending

October 23, 2008

http://www.4spe.org/elearning/

SPE & Plastics Industry Event Calendar


Board of Director’s Meeting - May 4, 2008 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Chairman: Hoa PhamChair-Elect: Tom TurngCouncilor: Jack DispenzaTechnical Dir: Peter GrelleTreasurer: Jim Wenskus / Dave KarpinskiSecretary: Larry Cosma / Walt Smith

Chairs, Hoa Pham / Tom Turng:• Meeting called to order at 8:30AM. Opening

remarks and introductions of members and visitors.• Patrick Gorton and Raymond McKee (possible

new board members), and Chris Lacey (newsletterpublisher).

Secretary, Larry Cosma / Walt Smith:• Review minutes of February 1 meeting. Motion to

accept 2/1/08 board meeting minutes by PeteGrelle, seconded by Jim Wenskus.

• Board roster was circulated for updates andapprovals.

• 13 out of 19 board members present (8:30am).

IDM Bylaws Update, Hoa Pham, Kishor Mehta, andLarry Schmidt:

• Discussed revisions to IMD Bylaws, as inSPEIMDBylawsrevised04-09-08.doc

• 2.2 Second Presentation and Vote• Article 6 Committees, Subcommittees, and Ad hoc

Committees, Section 6.11 Newsletter, Sub-Section6.11.2 Responsibility and Authority

• Changes made to 6.11.2.2, Publisher, in wordingand responsibilities. Motion by Larry Cosma toaccept Bylaws revisions, seconded by KishorMehta, and passed unanimously by the Board.

IMD liason John Ratzliff stopped in from SPE councilto introduce himself.

• Call for speakers for Chinaplast for next year.

Outgoing Chair, Hoa Pham, made closing remarks onher year as Chairmen, and the positive changes made.

• Established IMD scholarship fund.• Updated the IMD Bylaws.• Larry Cosma received a plaque in well-deserved

acknowledgement of his many years as IMDsecretary.

2008–2009 Chair, Tom Turng, said a few words on hiscoming year as IMD Board Chairman.

Financial Report, Jim Wenskus / Dave Karpinski:• Reviewed current status of finances, 2007–2008.• Reviewed proposed budget for 2008–2009 FY.

- Cut interest and dividends from $800 to $400on proposed budget.

- Cut TOPCON/RETEC receipts from $5000to $2500 (Winter meeting).

- Cut Newsletter Sponsorships from $10,000to $5000.

- Put in New Member Letter expenses ($900).- Bumped up Councilor travel fund from

$1500 to $2000.- Bumped up IMD Reception fund from $5000

to $7500.- Bumped up Educational Programs fund from

$500 to $1500.- Motion to accept new budget by Brad

Johnson, seconded by Larry Cosma, votedon and passed by the Board.

Board of Director Meeting Minutes


Financial Audit Change Proposal, Larry Cosma /Walt Smith: Cosma withdrew the proposal (LarryCosma).

Pinnacle Award, Tom Turng: IMD has received thePinnacle Gold Award this year. Tom and Jack Dispenzawill attend the SPE Awards Luncheon on 5/4/08.

SPE Presentation, Tricia McKnight IMD / SPE staffliaison:

• Handed out paper review dates to Brad Johnsonfor ANTEC 2009/NPE.

• Action Item: Tricia will check out room sizesfor ANTEC 2009 in Chicago.

• International Committee name was changed to“Strategic Growth Committee.”

Technical Director Report, Spring 2008, Peter Grelle:• Update on Carolina Topcon scheduled for March,

given by Pete Grelle:- 66 people attended, excluding presenters.- Talking about having the next conference

in Alabama.- Next time give free tickets to big OEM’s

and Tier 1 molders to boost attendance.- Surplus to IMD, $3187.48 (net income).

• Update on Penn State Behrend Topconscheduled for June given by Brad Johnson:

- Conference to be held June 10–12, 2008.- Projected attendance of 70 to 80 people.

• Update on Milwaukee MiniTec scheduled forOctober 2008 given by Tom Turng:

- Showed Chinaplast pictures.- Conference to be held on Tuesday,

October 21, 2008, at WyndhamMilwaukee Airport Hotel and ConventionCenter.

- Theme: “Emerging Technologies andMaterials: Nanotechnology andBiopolymers.”

- Fall IMD Board meeting to be held on 10/20/08 at 1:00 PM in Milwaukee.

ANTEC 2008 TPC Report, Dave Karpinski:• 63 papers being presented: 49 podium, 14

interactive, 9 sessions• Best Paper Award went to “A Study of the

Effect of Conformal Cooling on PartTemperature,” by Professor Jon Meckley andhis student at Penn State Erie.

• Best Student Paper Awards included

1st Place—“The Effects of Graduated Versus ConstantRunner Diameters on Filling and Packingof a Plastic Part in Injection Molding” byGregory L. Swanson and Matthew Weller,Penn State Erie

2nd Place—“Investigation of Comparative StressDistributions in Thermoforming VersusInjection Molding” by Thomas W. Shoaf,University of Wisconsin–Platteville

3rd Place—“The Effects of Radiused Corners on MeltFlow Imbalances” by Patrick J. Harrisand Patrick T. Miller, Penn State Erie.

Councilor Report, Jack Dispenza:• SPE’s website is being redesigned.• ANTEC attendance is good for Milwaukee, with

registrants still coming in.• Gail Bristol discussed the SPE Foundation.• Action Item: Jack is going to find “Best Practices

Document for Paper Review.”• SPE staff reduced to 25 people, from 42 people.

European SPE Update, Jan Stevens:• Not in attendance, no report received.

Membership Report, Nick Fountas:• 4,932 IMD members, both primary and secondary;

down 6.2% from the previous year.• 18,501 SPE primary members, down 5.9% from the

previous year.• New brochures were made to recruit new members

to the IMD and were distributed at ANTEC.• 25 brochures per IMD board member for distribution

at ANTEC 2008.• 1500 brochures printed, with a final cost of $1250.

Newsletter, Chris Lacey:• Newsletter – 4 sponsors for 2007–2008 newsletter.• Call for content for the Summer 2008 Newsletter

due June 10, 2008.• List “Best Paper” and “Best Paper Finalists” in the

newsletter.• Madison Group wanted to do a news release.• Terry Schwenk offering “Ask the Hot Runner

Expert” column in Newsletter.• Membership fees for newsletter were discussed. Too

high? Reason for lack of sponsors?• Newsletter accepts credit cards now for sponsorship

fees.• Summer 2008 issue currently has 2 sponsors.• Action Item: Chris needs additional names and

contacts for potential new newsletter sponsors.

BOD Minutes - Cont -


Communications & Website Chair, Lee Filbert:• Reviewed various division websites, Rotational

Molding, Blow Molding, etc., for IMD websiteideas.

• Action Item: Lee Filbert to find out costs ofconstructing website.

• Ken Burger is stepping down from the websitecommittee.

Education Committee, Tom Turng:• International Polymer Colloquium (on the Friday

immediately after ANTEC) at UW–Madisoncontinues to attract more and more domestic andinternational attendees.

Nominations Committee, Don Allen:• BOD candidates, votes received for Mike Uhrain

(48), Lee Filbert (47), and Brad Johnson (83).• Action Item: Walt to send phone list of all board

members into SPE for verification of e-mailaddresses (Tricia McKnight).

• Tom Turng appoints Raymond McKee and PatGorton for 1 year to the IMD Board.

Fellows and HSM Committee, Larry Schmidt:• Larry Schmidt nominated Shia-Chung Chen for

Fellow. Tom Turng seconded nomination.• Nomination was voted on and passed by IMD

Board.• Larry and the board discussed criterion for selection

of Fellows candidate. Patents and publicationsweighed heavily.

• HSM selection criterion was discussed. Larrynominated Bob Beard for HSM award. Tom Turngseconded nomination. Board voted and passednomination.

IMD History, Larry Schmidt:• Larry putting together IMD board history. He

needs help from board members with past data ofIMD Board.

Awards Committee, Jim Peret:• Plaques are here for ANTEC 2008!

Student Activities, Walt Smith:• Gave student activities report for ANTEC ‘08.

Machinery Committee : Mal Murthy (formerMachinery Committee Chair and IMD Board member):

• Mal sent letter to Tom Turng with the followingtwo suggestions:

- First: Proposal from Mal Murthy to interviewIM equipment suppliers for newslettercontributions.

- Second: Suggested more competitive rates forIMD newsletter sponsors, similar to MoldMaking newsletter rates.

New Business, Tom Turng:• Action Item: Tom Turng to contact Mike Uhrain

and Jan Stevens regarding their interest in beingTPC for 2010 and 2011.

• Action Item: Tom Turng to send Mike Uhrain aletter of thanks for Carolina TOPCON.

• Larry Cosma and Jack Dispenza okayed to spend$300 for IMD reception prizes.

Old Business, Tom Turng:• All action items taken care of from February IMD

Board meeting in Orlando.• Larry Cosma, Lee Filbert, Nick Fountas, and Brad

Johnson volunteered to work with Jack Dispenzafor ANTEC 2009 IMD reception.

• Action Item: Tom Turng to get in touch with MikeUhrain to make contacts with Demag for supportfor SPE conference at Chinaplast.

• Action Item: Tom Turng to send a reminder forall board members to verify their service terms.

Adjournment: Larry Cosma motioned to adjourn,seconded by Dave Karpinski, voted on and approved bythe board at 4:18 PM.

Want to be a Reporter for the IMD Newsletter?When you attend a molding event such as a conference, exhibit, or trade show, you can share your experience

with thousands of IMD members. The IMD Newsletter features the column “Things On The Road” to providemembers with an opportunity to contribute to the IMD community. We also welcome informative feature articles byour readers.

Send your review or summary to Chris Lacey ([email protected]) and see it published in the next newsletter!

BOD Minutes - Cont -


Board of Directors Meeting Min-

Gregory G. AdamsFrancisco A. AguiarJonathan AkeyCharles W. AlexanderAbdulrahman AlfarrajAbdul Aziz O. Al-HumaidSr.Daniel AllenDanny Hm AndersonGregory AndersonJoe ArcovioAmit AsthanaMarielos A. AustinBoaz AxelradJames R. BalzerDon R. BambargerChristopher J. BardenMathew P. BarrErich W. BauerTimothy J. Bauer Jr.Kevin J. BeckmanJason P. BellChad A BentleyRomylos I. BethanisBruce A BillmeyerEdwrad J. BizierPeter BlaasRaffaele BodiniHermann B. BoeckerMaziyar BolourchiRich E. BoucherJames T. BowenMarc BriereJerome A. BrotzDennis Brown IIJeff CarlsonSteven V. CarterLou CarulliMagda M CastilloBen G. CausbyNicole R. CerasoliJae Hyuk ChoiRichard ChouScott ChristensenEva CochSara CoslettLarry CourterWilliam A. CurtisOcileide Custodio Da SilvaGary DaltonRahul DandoraGourab DasGarrett E. DaumJohn E. DavisGeorge DiamantakosJuan C. Diaz AlvarezMichael DikelskySandeep DisawalHiep Q. DoPaul Driese Sr.Jason R. DurkinSteve DyerGlen DykstraGregory C. EhaltStefan EimekeDavid E. ElbertFadi A. El-khatib Ph.D.Robert D. ElliottScott J. EllisRomano F. EmpaynadoLarry W EssenburgFrancois EstellonLiang Fang

The IMD welcomes 294 new members from around the world.

New Members

Diane FarettaKenneth FarrBrad FergusonJose FerreiraLeandro FiorinS FitzsimmonsJochen ForstmannRobert FortuneAaron J. FossAndrew FoxRussell FranklinJay A. FremDon FunkBarry GaileyPaul GandolfoBill GearhartJohn GilliganJayashree GnanarajPatrick J GortonKalydon GrahamTimothy GrahamTim GriffinMyriam GueretteGary S. GuettermanCarole GuillaumeDheeraj GuptaNancy Halliday SmithJarred R. HamiltonPolly B. HammesJason HanzlikMark S HarringtonJames HartingsCorey D. HauverChuck HeadrickThom HemlerGreg HerbersRobert L. Heritage Jr.Randy HermanMichelle HicksKevin HjortBrandon HoughBryan J. HowellJim HsuKevin T. HudsonRod HuelsJohn W HughesWilliam L. HughesMark T. JablonkaTrevor B. JackHumza S. JafferjiRichard L. JamesonKathleen JarvisJack (Zhiqiang) JinDerry JingGrant R. JohnRyan A. JohnsonJonathan A. JonesElyse K. JoyceMark Edward JusticeRon KeithScott KellyMitch KennedySteve KilburnSibe KnolKen KosteckiAkshay Arvind KothariKirtivan D. KotianJurgen KriegerPaula K. KrugerInes KuehnertJosh L. LambertWilliam LamingCharles A. Lang

Wayne H. LaningJim LauridsenRyan LawJosh K. LayerKuk-Hoon LeeYoungJoo LeeJason M. LeonKristine M. LessoHai-Mei LiMichael LiebeltRobert LincolnScott LippCJ ListleAlfonso LiuScott LivingstonRobert P. LoiolaRuben LopezAmiesh LovekarJorge LozanoAaron MacanReynolds J. MacchiMichel MagdelynsJason MallekFrank C. MausJames C. McCallFran McCartyShaun McconkeyDouglas McKearneyRaymond W. McKeeRamon MelendezDawn MelmanVictor MendozaFrank J. MiddletonEnrique MiramontesDan MishekWes MoffittGeorge MooreJean-Francois MorizurMike MorrKenneth R MorrisManfred MuenzlDave MunkwitzTim MurphyBryan A. MusciaKenneth W. Nelson IIJohn A. NemethRay NewkirkCory NewmanDuncan NewmanJean NewtonStacey J. NicholasDerek NortonKiichi NosakaGlen E. NovakFrancis E NyakaturaChristopher OddyTomoko OhtaAdolfo OrtizPaul OsentoskiGreg OstlerThomas S. PakenhamPrabhu PalanisamyArun ParamasivanDarrin W. PelleyEvan PerkinsMike PetersenEric PetersonAlain PicheJoseph PilomRobert E. PilonFred PippertDavid W PlocinskiTeresa Pomesano

Quentin PorterRonald J. PosegoZachary PoustChris M. ProctorMark PulcianiYogitha RamineniJames ReagansDaniel Redmond Jr.Jason A. ReeseErin RiddickMark RiemannMatt RiiskaPeter RistikangasCesar A. RiveroBrian RubinTomas SaagiDaniel R. SaighEli San EmeterioRicardo SandovalMark SannerMichael A. SantosMarcio SantucciMartin SchaefersPeter ScheerDavid SchellJim SchmitzTony SchoendorffAndreas SchothMike SchumacherGary SecoraRay SerdynskiNick SetoRob ShadeBrian K. ShiflettMIng-Yi ShihCharles A. SholtisWarren C. ShrefflerSiddharth D. ShroffMark SiravoAngie Lynn SmithsonBruno G. SodaroSteve SpanoudisJason SteinMichael R. StrikerMunish SuriSteve SwainMark A SwansonHarold TaddyShawn TalebpourShinichiro TanifujiMark A TeschAnthony J. ThompsonJames R. TomlinsonMark ToolsieCatherine I. TrameTheodore W. Tressler IIIChia-yen TsengAran Van BelkomCraig Van BrocklinSteve P. VanwaardenbergDavid S. WaddyShulamite D. WanDevin WarrenShane L. WeeksJohn M. WestbeldAdam B. WiegandCollin R. WilkersonKelly WilliamsJason WillisAl C. WilsonDavid WirthChiu Yan-ChenKerem YavuzDeng ZhangHuamin ZhouHelge Zimmet


The IMD also welcomes 188 companies and organizations that haverecently expanded their membership in the Injection Molding Division

AC Wilson Enterprises Inc.Accel Color Corp.Advanced Injection MoldingAjou University / KoreaAlliance Laundry SystemsAmphenol Steward EnterprisesApex Plastics and Tooling Inc.Arkidelo Pty. Ltd.Armoloy of Western PAArnold Magnetic TechnologiesArun EngineeringAustro Mold Inc.Ayanna Plastics & EngineeringBadger Meter Inc.Ball CorporationBalluffBASF Corp.Bayer Material ScienceBeckman CoulterBelden Electronics Div.Bemis Manufacturing Co.Bodini Presse SrlBoy MachinesBuild with NatureC. Brewer CoCarclo Technical PlasticsCarlson Tool & ManufacturingCentennial PlasticManufacturingCentury Eslon Ltd.Chem-Trend LPChung Yuan Christian U.Clearedge PowerCNHComDel Innovation Inc.CoreTech System (Moldex 3D)Co. Ltd.Corning Inc.CovidienCrystal Manufacturing Co.DAIEI & Co. Ltd.Daikin America Inc.DanaherDelphiDeluxe Plastics IncDow AutomotiveDow Chemical (China) Co. Ltd.Dow Chemical USA

DSI Laser Perrysburg LLCEldorado Industrias PlasticasLtdaEngineered Plastics Inc.Ess Tec IncFilling & Packing Materials Mfg.Co.Fosta-Tek OpticsFoto Anodizado Sa De CvFres-co System USAGAF Materials CorpGE HealthcareGE WhatmanGeneral Motors Do Brasil Ltda.Great Plains PlasticsGreatbatchHasbroHeppner Molds Inc.Honda R&D of Americas Inc.Huazhong U. of Science & TechHusky Injection MoldingINdT PauloIndustrias Niko S.A.IneosIngenia Polymers Corp.Inteva Products LLCInvivo CorporationIpex IncITW Engineered FastenersJM & CompanyKelloggKettering U.Kohler Co.Konica Minolta SensingAmericas Inc.Kraft FoodsKyoto Institute of TechnologyLabelle Industrial SalesLaming & AssociatesLankhorst RecyclingLetica Corp.M. Holland Co.Maine PlasticsMajor PlasticsMarplex Australia LtdMatrix IncMattel IncMedrad Inc.

MerquinsaMetal Industries Company Ltd.Millipore CorporationMine Safety AppliancesMintt Technology Ltd.MityLiteMolded Geometries Inc.Molded Rubber & Plastic Corp.Motorola RPTCMPI Packaging Inc.MR-ChattanoogaMSANanoInkNational Bearings Co.National Plastics & Mfg. Co.Neutrex Inc.Newman Engineering Inc.North Carolina State U. - IESNovelty Crystal Corp.Nypro IncOakland U.Oatey Co.Omni Plastics Inc.Osram SylvaniaPace GroupPalmer Holland Inc.Pasco ToolPhillips Plastics Corp.Pittsburgh PlasticsManufacturingPlamedia Co. Ltd.Plastic Molding Technology Inc.Plastic PackagePlastics Parts Inc.Playtex Products Inc.Polietilenos UniãoPolyOnePolySource LLCPolytechnique DeMontrealPremix OyPrettl Electric Corp.Pro Mold Inc.PromoldPST Business Solutions LLCRehrig Pacific Co.Reiff Injection MoldingResearch In MotionRexamRexam Plastic Packaging

Rockline IndustriesRopak PackagingRubbermaidSABIC Innovative PlasticsSaigh SolutionsSaint-Gobain TampaSanta Fe Machine/PhoenixSAS AutomationShawnee State U.Solo CupSolvay Advanced Polymers LLCSpirex Corp.StackTeck SystemsStock Gears Inc.StoneridgeStrattec Security Corp.Stull TechnologiesSuburban Plastics Inc.SYCOR Americas IncSynthesTasus Corp.Teamvantage Molding IncTech Products Inc.Tech Tool & Molded PlasticsTeleflex MedicalTemtron Inc.The Minco GroupThermo Fisher ScientificThermoplay SPATipsaTrane Residential SystemsTri-Par Die & Mold Corp.U. Duisburg-EssenU. Erlangen-NurembergU. FreiburgU. Paderborn KTPUMR IATEUpchurch Scientific Inc.Utex Industries Inc.Uygar Makina san ve tic Ltd. StiVictrexVision Technical MoldingVista Technologies LLCVivatorWestern Tool & Mold Ltd.Whirlpool of India Ltd.Wittmann Inc.Zhengzhou U.Zobele de Mexico

Did you know thatInjection Molding Division members hail from 62 different countries?

AngolaArgentinaAustraliaBelgiumBrazilBulgariaCanadaChileColombiaCosta RicaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmark

EcuadorEgyptFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceGuatemalaHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIreland

IsraelItalyJapanJordanKoreaKuwaitLuxembourgMalaysiaMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNigeria

NorwayPakistanPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRepublic of ChinaRussiaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSlovakiaSouth Africa

SpainSri LankaSwedenSwitzerlandTaiwanThailandTrinidadTurkeyUAEUnited KingdomU.S.A.Venezuela

New Member Companies


Membership Application


Chris LaceyNewsletter publisher

1513 University Ave.Madison, WI 53523T: 608-263-5963F: [email protected]

Dear Readers,I hope you’ve enjoyed the

summer edition of the news-letter. Do you have an idea formaking this newletter evenbetter? Then what are youwaiting for? Please email mewith your suggestions.

Due to the success of theAsk the Expert column, we’veintroduced a Ask the HotRunner Expert column. I’d liketo thank Bob Dealey ofDealey’s Mold Engineering andTerry Schwenk of Process &

DEALEY’S MOLD 20ENGINEERING(www.DealeyME.com)

INCOE 38(www.incoe.com)

PROCESS & DESIGN 16TECHNOLOGIES(www.processdesigntech.com)

XALOY 38(www.xaloy.com)

Design Technologies for their expertise and willingnessto answer your injection molding and hot runnerquestions.

Last but not least, we invite you to take advantageof our sponsorship opportunities. It’s a great way toreach over 5000 individuals in the injection moldingindustry! See page 24 for details.

Sponsors Publisher

summer 2008 newsletter fd5 - amazon...

Documents