Residual Stresses in Injection Molding 1.

Injection molding
Four stages
Basic understanding and measurement Fill Hold Cool Eject

Pressure [MPa]
Filling
1. Injection Molding Holding Pressure profile
2. Simple stress model Cooling
3. Residual Stress measurements Ejection time [s]

4. Conclusions

K.M.B. (Kaspar) Jansen

k.m.b.jansen@tudelft.nl

1
2
Associate professor
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
Product Engineering Section Schematic of thermoplastic Injection molding machine

1. Injection molding 2. Simple stress model

Residual stresses in finished products
Shrinkage is prevented in mold (ribs, etc.)
Due to crystallization, thermal shrinkage and pressure
Layer-wise solidification
Invisible
Each layer freezes under different pressure
Affects product performance
Pressure profile freezes-in
More sensitive to stress cracking
Warpage, tolerance problems
Undesired optical effects (birefringence) MPa
MPa

tensile
0- +10 -
60 -
Pressure [MPa]

Ejection
40 - -10 -
P(t) 0-

20 - -20 -
-10 -
compressive
time [s] compressive

3 September 24, 2012

2. Simple stress model 2. Simple stress model

With equations Validation studies
Solidification pressure: z = thickness coordinate

Residual stresses
1 2
Hydrostatic strain: 1 2
1
1 2 Jansen, Polym. Eng. Sci. 38, p.2030 (1999)
Expansion upon ejection:
Jansen, Intern. Polym. Process. 9, p.82 (1994)

1 2
Stress after ejection:
1 Shrinkage after molding:
1 2

Note: Thermal stresses vanish after ejection and cooling down Jansen, Intern. Polym. Process. 13, p.99 (1998)
Reason: Prevention of in-mold shrinkage Jansen, Polym. Eng. Sci. 38, p.838 (1998)

September 24, 2012 5 September 24, 2012 6

Works amazingly well!

1
2. Simple stress model 2. Simple stress model
Warpage due to uneven cooling Warpage due to uneven cooling

Injection Molded plate tensile Injection molded corner product

- Low hold pressures warp to hot side; high to cold side Cold Hot
Intern. Polym. Process. 13, p.417 (1998)
/
12 1 2
curvature
/

compressive
- Model predicts correct trends, but
- underpredicts warpage by factor 2

Intern. Polym. Process. 13, p.417 (1998)

Fine tuning of angle with Ph and Tw possible!

September 24, 2012 7 September 24, 2012 8

2. Conclusions about stress model 3. Residual Stress Measurements

Overview of methods
Model is simple and gives a clear understanding
birefringence
For simple geometries model works as good as
Sensitive to both orientation and stress (PC, PMMA more for stress,
simulation tools PS more for orientation)
Frozen-in cavity pressure profile determines stresses Stresses relieve near cutting surface not useful
and shrinkage (not the thermal stresses!) MPa
Layer Removal
Surface layer and core are in tension; sub-surface +10 -
tensile
Elaborative
layer in compression Stress relaxation due to milling heat
0- Hole drilling method
Shrinkage and warpage follow from same model Only average stress level possible not useful
Shrinkage and warpage can be tuned with holding -10 - Environmental Stress Cracking test
pressure and mold temperatures compressive
Only average stress level possible not useful

September 24, 2012 9 September 24, 2012 10

3. Residual Stress Measurements 3. Residual Stress Measurements

Outline of Layer Removal test Example of Layer Removal method

1. Mill top layer (50-200 m)

2. Residual stresses are no longer

zr
balanced

3. Release from vacuum rig

h(x)

4. Measure curvature

Back-Calculate stress distribution 6 1

4 2
stress distribution
deflection profiles curvature profile
Treuting and Read, J Appl Phys 22, p.130 (1951)
September 24, 2012 11 September 24, 2012 12

Hastenberg et al., Pol Eng Sci 32, p.506 (1992)

Zoetelief et al., Pol Eng Sci 36, p.1886 (1996)

2
3. Residual Stress Measurements 3. Residual Stress Measurements
Layer Removal method: Problems and solutions Why Excimer laser ablation
Stress relaxation after production KrF has high energy photons (3.5-8 eV)
Store in freezer before use C-O C-C bond strength
Melting and stress release during milling 0 3.6 6.2 10 eV
Use sharp tool and speed < 1500 rpm
Creep effects after milling KrF excimer laser
Due to flattening in test rig! Wait 10 min (96% recovery) Nd:YAG laser
Resolution: milling <0.1 mm is difficult CO2 laser

Will give problems near surface curvatures

data
Data analyis of (zr) curve: differentiation error Polyfit 4
direct bond breaking; no melting!
Polyfit 6
Do not fit a polynomial over all data points Pulsed operation: shockwaves remove debris
but use a sliding window fit
Ultra thin layers possible (< 1 m)
September 24, 2012 13 September 24, 2012 Jansen, Polym. Eng. Sci. 38, p.2030 (1999) 14

Note: only works well with Polycarbonate

1 0.5 0

3. Residual Stress Measurements 3. Residual Stress Measurements

Comparison with model predictions
Comparison between standard milling and laser ablation
High viscosity; high Ph
Stress levels of 5 MPa tensile to -10 MPa compression
- small surface stress
Typical error margin: 0.5 MPa - compressive sub-surface layer
Good consistency; differences only near surface (200 m) - good match with model
500-1000 rpm milling similar to laser ablation
2000 rpm not OK: surface stresses changed
High viscosity; low Ph
- large compressive surface stress
- almost quenching like stress profile
- reasonable match with model

Low viscosity; high Ph

- large tensile surface stress
- inversion of stress profile
September 24, 2012 15
-September
low24,stresses
2012
in core 16

- good match with model

4. Conclusions
MPa

Stresses in injection molding are mainly due to frozen- tensile

+10 -
in pressure variations
Warpage is due to asymmetric stress distribution
0-
Stress profile, warpage and shrinkage can be
estimated is a relatively simple way
-10 -
compressive

Layer Removal method is suitable to measure stress

profiles
but carefulness is required
Depending on viscosity and holding pressure the
frozen-in stress profiles can be tuned from
compressive to tensile! 1 0.5 0 0.5 1

September 24, 2012 17