10 Common Pitfalls in Thin-Wall Plastic Part Design

Timothy A. Palmer Bayer Corporation, 100 Bayer Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15205

Abstract:
Market pressures to reduce product size and weight have led to thin-wall housing designs that push the limits of moldability and part performance for engineering thermoplastics. To a much greater extent than for conventional designs, product success depends on careful optimization of the part design and manufacturing process. However, because the design rules and processing requirements differ for thin-wall parts, the optimum combination of design and process can be elusive. The common pitfalls in thin-wall plastic part design usually arise because rules-of-thumb developed for conventional designs are applied to thin-wall parts. This creates problems which can remain hidden until final prototyping or mold trials, adding considerable time and expense to the manufacturing process and delaying a product's introduction into today's quickly changing, high-tech marketplace. Ten of these common pitfalls are presented here to equip designers and molders with the information needed to recognize and avoid them.

Definition of Thin-Wall: For the purposes of this paper, a thin-wall part is defined as one injection molded in an engineering thermoplastic resin (e.g. PC, PC/ABS, PA6), having projected area greater than 8 square inches and nominal wall thickness less than 0.060" (1.5 mm). Today, many thin-wall applications push beyond this defined limit and use nominal wall thicknesses less than 0.040" (1.0 mm).

advancing flow will simply not fill the thinnest areas of a part, creating either non-fill or gas entrapment. Because of these difficulties, thin-wall parts should be designed with uniform wall thickness as much as possible. This allows molded parts with low differential volumetric shrinkage, improved dimensional quality and reduced chance of cosmetic problems caused by non-fill or gas entrapment. However, the decision to use nominal wall design must be made early in the design cycle due to the restrictions it may impose. Often, additional wall thickness must be added to the inside of a housing opposite areas such as label recesses to maintain the nominal wall thickness, as shown in figure 1. Note that as with conventional parts, sharp edges in the flow path and at internal corners should be avoided.

Pitfall #1: Designing with too much variation from the nominal wall thickness. After the molten resin is injected into the mold cavity, different areas of the plastic part experience different levels of volumetric shrinkage proportional to wall thickness. In conventional moldings packing pressure is applied to force more molten material into the thicker areas, minimizing the effects of differential shrinkage. Unlike conventional parts, molten resin in thin-wall parts solidifies only a few seconds after the end of fill, giving packing pressure little time to act. The thinnest walls solidify before significant volumetric shrinkage can occur. Thicker areas take longer to freeze, experiencing very high volumetric shrinkage. In the worst case, material around the gate can solidify before any area of the part can be adequately packed-out. The notion that molten plastic follows the path of least resistance is especially true in thin-wall housings. Often,

Pitfall #2: Using improper rib to wall thickness ratio. The thick section formed by the intersection of a rib and the nominal wall tends to experience greater volumetric shrinkage than the rest of the part, causing sink opposite the rib. In conventional housings, rib base thickness is based on a percentage of the attached nominal wall, varying from 50 to 66% depending on the degree of cosmetic perfection desired. This design practice acts to reduce the thick section and make it easier to pack-out, largely eliminating visible sink.

10 Common Pitfalls in Thin-Wall Plastic Part Design / Page 1

0.047

0.020

0.033

Filling Pressure vs. Wall Thickness

Injection Rate = 15 cu. In./sec., Polycarbonate resin 35 K Injection Pressure ( psi) 30 K 25 K 20K 15 K 10 K 5K 0 0.060 0.080 0.040 Housing Nominal Wall Thickness (in.) Resin Melt Flow Index (g/10 min) 35 20 12

0.200

0.040 wall - 0.67:1 0.080 wall - 0.67:1

0.040 wall - 1:1

Figure 1: Thick Sections at Rib Base When standard rib design rules are applied to thin-wall parts, the resulting rib designs are usually too thin to fill properly, especially after draft is added. An example is shown in figure 1 in which a 2/3 ratio is appropriate for an 0.080" thick wall, but creates a very thin rib when the base wall is 0.040" thick. If the ribs can be filled, freeze-off usually occurs well before the rest of the part, with shrinkage much different than in the attaching nominal wall. To allow the ribs to fill properly, a 1:1 rib to wall thickness ratio, also shown in figure 1, can be used in walls less than about 0.050" thick. Any resulting sink marks tend to be much less noticeable than with conventional parts, especially if the opposing surface is textured. In a thin-wall part, there is much less material at the rib/wall intersection to shrink and cause sink than in conventional molded parts.

Figure 2: Thin-Wall Housing Pitfall #4: Relying on fiber-reinforced resins to provide rigidity. As shown in figure 3, the structural rigidity of a thin-wall housing is greatly reduced versus its thick-wall counterpart due to the reduction in section modulus. From the standard engineering beam bending formula (w/ both ends simply supported), the maximum deflection is inversely proportional to the thickness cubed , so under identical loads, a beam 0.040" thick has deflection 8 times a wall 0.080" thick. A potential solution for thin-wall housings is to use a fiber-filled resin, which typically increases the material modulus by about 50% (10% glass fiber-filled). However, maximum deflection is only inversely proportional to the material modulus, so the unfilled beam only deflects 1.5 times more than the fiber-filled one. Because the wall thickness effect dominates over the effect of fiber reinforcement, the rigidity of thin-wall housings can not be expected to compare to thick-wall, conventional housings. Rigidity of thin-wall applications will still depend on assembly with the product's other internal components, regardless of the resin used.

Pitfall #3: Considering only easy-flow resins for thin-wall applications. Thermoplastic resins are often available in a range of molecular weights. Grades with lower molecular weight typically have lower melt viscosity and flow farther under the same pressure than their higher molecular weight counterparts. Unfortunately, easier flow usually comes at the expense of physical properties such as yield strength and impact strength. In addition, a material's resistance to UV light and chemical attack are reduced with decreasing molecular weight. Because thin-wall applications can be difficult to fill, the expected flow properties of low molecular weight resins seem desirable. Figure 2 shows the difference in predicted filling pressure between high and low molecular weight grades of polycarbonate for a sample housing. Mold-filling analysis results for the 0.040" (1.0 mm) nominal wall show that regardless of molecular weight, high-performance injection molding equipment is probably required. In this case, using a lower molecular weight resin may sacrifice material properties without significantly reducing production costs.

P b E L h

y=

P L3 4Eb h3

h = 0.080 Unfilled PC Resin w/ 10% Glass y = 0.006 y = 0.004

h = 0.040 y = 0.048 y = 0.032 x 2 3

x 8.0

Figure 3: Beam Deflection

10 Common Pitfalls in Thin-Wall Plastic Part Design / Page 2

Impact properties are also important for thin-wall housings given their widespread use in hand-held products prone to being dropped. Fortunately, thinner walls may perform slightly better in a drop impact because more flexible walls have better energy absorption. However, the addition of fillers can sharply reduce these properties. For example, the notched izod impact strength of 0.125" thick polycarbonate is reduced from 17 ft lb/in to 2 ft lb/in when 10% glass is added. These examples suggest that the liabilities of fiber-filled materials may outweigh their benefits in most thin-wall parts.

Today's closed-loop, electronic controls allow nearly any injection rate to be set at the press, but close examination of the actual ram velocity vs. position trace may show that the desired injection rate can only be achieved over a small portion of the injection cycle, if at all. In this case, a "high-performance" injection molding press designed specifically for high injection rates will be required. Such machines have the ability to deliver high pressure at very high injection rates through the use of accumulators or other methods.

Pitfall #5: Improperly locating gates. Thin-wall applications push thermoplastic resins and standard injection molding equipment to their respective limits, but properly locating gates is often overlooked as a way to widen the available processing window. Unfortunately, gate locations are often chosen after part designs are finalized, leaving only a few locations where gate vestige is allowed. A better approach is to pick gate locations early in the design cycle to optimize filling, and then position label areas or other styling to conceal any remnant of vestige. In conventional as well as thin-wall parts, filling pressure is minimized when all of the last areas to fill do so simultaneously. This phenomenon is known as balanced filling and promotes uniform solidification and packing of the part. When wall thickness is uniform in a thin-wall part, gate locations should be chosen so that the longest flow paths from all gates are equal in length. However, if a thin-wall part has non-uniform wall thickness, truly balanced filling is difficult to achieve. In fact, some degree of filling imbalance may actually improve the moldability of a non-uniform wall part. Mold-filling analysis is required to optimize such cases. When analyzing a thin-wall part, the mold-filling analyst should always consider the part and the delivery system (e.g. three-plate runner, hot manifold), because pressure consumed in these components can have a much greater effect on flow balance in thin-wall parts than in conventional designs.

Pitfall #7: Using more gates than necessary. In many thin-wall applications, numerous gates are used when fewer would be suitable because the material is not expected to flow more than a few inches beyond the gate. However, as mentioned in #6, significant flow in thin walls is possible when flow-front velocity is high enough. The rapid freeze-off expected in thin walls typically occurs because the flow front velocity is too low to generate shear heating.

Input Flow Rate, Q R/2 Q

Q/4 v t v

v=Q/2Rt

v=Q/4Rt

Figure 4: Flow-Front Velocity for Single vs. Multiple Gating While the ability to maintain high flow-front velocity is largely dependent on the capabilities of the injection molding press, the number of gates used also plays an important role. Assuming radial flow from a pin-point style gate, the flow front velocity is inversely proportional to the distance flowed. If a square housing is fed through a centrally located gate (figure 4), flow front velocity at the end of fill is Q/2 Rt, where Q is injection rate, R is the radial distance flowed and t is part thickness. When multiple gates are used to fill the part, flow distance is reduced, but the input flow rate must be divided among the gates. In this example, the four gate system has half the flow front velocity of the single gate system at the end of fill. The part with a single, center gate has higher flow front velocity at the end of fill, no major knitlines and avoids gas entrapment at the center of the part.

Pitfall #6: Using slow injection rates. While high injection pressures are required to fill thin-walled parts, delivering the molten resin at a sufficient injection rate is also an important parameter. To prevent early freeze-off, the molding machine must inject material at a rate high enough to produce shear heating at the flow-front. Once the flow-front temperature begins to drop, the pressure required to advance it can quickly exceed press capabilities, resulting in non-fill.

10 Common Pitfalls in Thin-Wall Plastic Part Design / Page 3

Pitfall #8: Undersizing gates. Because higher injection rates are used in thin-wall molding, larger gates are required to prevent cosmetic damage caused by excessive gate shear. Externally heated hot drops or valve-gated drops allow large gate diameters with clean degating. The following formula can be used to estimate the required pin-point or hot-tip gate orifice diameter.

cavity projected area. If the part to be filled is large, the mold and backup plates should be about twice as thick as conventional parts to prevent flexing during highpressure injection.

D=

32Q n

Here, the diameter D is a function of Q, the volumetric flow rate from the nozzle, n , the number of gates and ?, the shear rate limit. For engineering thermoplastics the shear rate limit is usually 20,000 - 40,000 1/s, depending on the shear-sensitivity of the resin. Use a limit of 20,000 1/s for shear-sensitive resins. Note that this formula assumes equal flow passes through each gate. It can also be used to size tunnel gates, which should have at least a 20 included angle and be at a 45 angle to the parting line. If a three-plate runner is used, large gates may cause damage the thin nominal wall during degating. This can be avoided if a reinforcing dome is used opposite the gate as shown in figure 5. Keep in mind that pressure imbalance between multiple drops in cold, three-plate runners may be more than with hot runner systems.
90

Pitfall #10: Inadequate venting in the tool. The fast injection rates used in thin-wall molding require larger parting line vents, primarily to prevent flow hesitation as air is pushed from the cavity at the end of fill. However, the higher injection pressures and better flowing resins used increase the risk of parting line flash. A mold designed with a generous number of thinner vents may be the best compromise. Proper venting in the areas where air is chased at the end of fill is especially critical. Air trapped ahead of a quickly converging flow front can significantly increase filling pressure requirements.

0.040

. 080

Reinforcing Dome

Figure 5: Suggested pin-point gate detail for thin-wall parts requiring large gates.

Pitfall #9: Underestimating clamp tonnage requirements. In thin-wall molding, it is not uncommon for the process window to be limited by the mold blowing open due to high cavity pressures. With conventional parts, clamp tonnage estimates of 3 tons per square inch are often adequate. Thin-wall applications must typically allow for more than 5 tons of clamp per square inch of the mold

10 Common Pitfalls in Thin-Wall Plastic Part Design / Page 4