Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 29: 662–682, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1042-6914 print=1532-2475 online
DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2014.880467

Review of Factors that Affect Shrinkage of Molded

Part in Injection Molding
Daniele Annicchiarico and Jeffrey R. Alcock

School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK

Purpose: This paper reviews the factors affecting shrinkage of molded parts in injection molding. Methods: A selective screening of the
papers published in the last 10 years was adopted. The review was organized according to molding scale (macro or micro) and by consider-
ing four branches of influence: material behaviors, processing parameters, mold, and specimen design. Results: Within the interval of
confidence, at the macroscale, critical processing parameters were the temperatures, the packing parameters, cooling time, and injection
speed; temperatures and packing parameters resulted critical factors at the microscale as well. Concerning the design aspects, the runner
size and the ribs affect shrinkage at the macro and microscale, respectively. The analysis of the literature review has shown an absence
of statistical approach for determining the material influences, a lack of information on shrinkage occur in powder-molded parts and
the absence of data in specimen with dimensions below 10 m. Conclusions: The review collected the factors that affect shrinkage in injection
molding, and identified three possible areas for further works.

Keywords Injection molding; Macroscale; Microscale; Molded parts; Shrinkage.

INTRODUCTION Figure 4 depicts a representation of the market

Aim of the Paper
The conventional injection molding (CIM) is likely to
be the most important processing for producing plastic
articles. Figure 1 reports the market of plastic pro-
duction: China is the leader, followed by the rest of Asia
countries, then Europe, and North America (North
American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA).
By focusing the analysis on Europe, the greater part of
plastic demand is on packaging, as confirmed by Fig. 2.
With the improved demand of high-performance
materials and the miniaturization of complex devices,
the microinjection molding (m-IM) (or micro-powder
injection molding m-PIM) has been developed from
CIM. m-IM technique started more than 30 years ago
and quickly grown up in importance in the last decades
[1]. Medical applications (lab-on-a-chip, microsurgery),
optical devices, sensing: all these fields are only examples
of m-IM applications [2]. Although m-IM is globally
widespread, Europe and Asia-Pacific account for a
major share of metal injection molding segment, while
the USA is still the largest market for ceramic injection
molding [3].
By considering the PIM, similarly to plastic injection
molding, Asia confirmed a leader position as reported
in Fig. 3.
partition of PIM, organized by applications and regions;
the acronym ROW means ‘‘rest of world’’.
Every injection molding, regardless of the scale, was
affected by dimensional variations (shrinkage) of
molded part. It is important to reduce and minimize
the discrepancy between mold design and final specimen
dimensions, especially in applications that require tight
tolerances, and for this reason it is important to investi-
gate any factor that can affect shrinkage. Moreover,
shrinkage can determine sink mark or voids in molded
parts [4]; both are consequences of insufficient shrinkage
compensation [5]. Sink consists in physical depression
on the surface of molded part [6] and is caused by a ther-
mal contraction in the region of contact between the
melt and the wall mold [7]; although it does not affect
the functionality of molded part, it is considered a ser-
ious quality defect. The voids are holes entrapped inside
the molded part [5]; the outer skin resists to shrinkage
forces between external area and mold wall on the con-
trary of core part that shrinks creating voids. The voids
affect the structural functionality of molded part.
The aim of this paper is to review the works that
investigated the factors that influence shrinkage of
molded parts regardless of the scale (macro or micro).
The works considered investigated applications in
material science and engineering field, and cover a
period from 2004 to 2013.

Received October 29, 2013; Accepted December 18, 2013 METHODOLOGY

Address correspondence to Daniele Annicchiarico, Building 56,
Cranfield University, Wharley End, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43
0AL, UK; E-mail: d.annicchiarico@cranfield.ac.uk
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/lmmp.
Structure of Review
The definitions normally accepted for describing
shrinkage were well reported by Fischer in his Handbook
of moulded part shrinkage and warpage [8]: mold

662
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART
FIGURE 1.—World plastic material production [1].
FIGURE 2.—European plastic demand [1].
shrinkage (or in-mold shrinkage or molded part shrink-
age) usually refers to the difference between the linear
dimension of the mold at room temperature and that
of the molded part at room temperature within 48 h
following ejection.
FIGURE 3.—Worldwide statistics of powder injection molding [5].
663
FIGURE 4.—Market partition by region and applications as percent sales of
powder injection molding [5].
A start point on how to structure this review was the
scheme reported by Stan et al. [9]. The authors orga-
nized different sources for depicting a diagram that con-
sidered factors that affect shrinkage and warpage.
Experimental evidences [10] shown that these two
phenomenon were affected by different factors, even if
warpage (defined as differential shrinkage) was gener-
ated by shrinkages. As consequence, a more focused
structure respect to the scheme reported by Stan et al.
[9] was required for considering only factors that affec-
ted shrinkage. The result was reported in Fig. 5. The
present review considered the influence of polymer beha-
vior (morphology, molecular chains, particle loading)
and technical aspects (processing parameters influence,
mold, and specimen design) on shrinkage because fac-
tors strictly connected to molding processing. Indeed,
the design (both mold and specimen) is the starting point
in every project, then the material choice (determined by
material properties) is followed by the molding process
(hence to identify the critic processing parameters).
The factors that affect shrinkage were often the result
FIGURE 5.—Branches considered in the present review.
664
of an optimization stage that adopts statistical
approaches.
The diagram reported in Fig. 5 starts with the indi-
cation of a scale effect. As will be clearly shown, experi-
mental evidences demonstrated that shrinkage was
affected by scale effects. The review was organized by
considering the scale effects, and the critical parameters
were divided according to this consideration.
Not reviewed here are methodologies for measuring
shrinkage. A summary of these at the micro and macro-
scale can be found in Ref. [11].
Search Methodology
The state-of-the-art about shrinkage in injection
molding was approached using SCOPUS, a biblio-
graphic scientific database. The research started by using
the keywords ‘‘molding’’ AND ‘‘shrinkage’’, and results
were limited to the last 10 years (2004–2013) in material
science and engineering fields.
Filtering factors reduced the initial amount of papers
from 4131 to 243, and a further screening selected only
those suitable for the present paper. As guidelines, were
considered thermoplastic materials (no thermosetting,
clays, cement, liquid crystals, composites, wafer) molded
by injection molding (neither lithography nor casting),
with molded part characteristics (no debinding, sinter-
ing) experimentally validated (no CAD, CAE, neural
networks). Mechanical (strength) and thermal outcomes
were removed as well.
The literature research was integrated with papers
available from other sources for covering the available
knowledge in this field. The Web, Google Scholar,
Web of Science, and free online papers provided
additional papers. The result can be considered as state
of the art and discussed in the present review for
approaching shrinkage of molded parts.
An overall view of the papers has shown that despite
of the great importance of PIM researches (ceramic and
metal), only few papers that argued about powder mold-
ing. The reason was that the greater part of papers that
investigated shrinkage in PIM were focused about
FIGURE 6.—PVT diagram of an amorphous (A) and a crystalline (B) thermoplastic material [10] [Reprinted with permission from Elsevier editor].
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
shrinkage resulted from debinding and sintering step
or about rheology behavior. Moreover, even when sin-
tered parts were considered, the studies investigated
rarely the influence of molding parameters in terms of
shrinkage.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section investigated four branches at the macro
and microscale: the material properties, the processing
parameters, the mold, and specimen design (considered
together).
Material Property Influences
Under the term ‘‘material properties’’ were considered
aspects such as pressure–volume–temperature (PVT)
behavior, internal structure=morphology and material
crystallinity. According to the literature reviewed, these
properties can affect and influence shrinkage and have
to be considered.
Material properties at the macroscale.
PVT trend. The intrinsic cause for shrinkage of
injection-molded parts is the thermodynamic behavior
of the material, as reported in Fig. 6. The PVT trend
determined the compressibility and thermal expansion
of plastics as confirmed by studies [12, 13].
In detail, a different PVT behavior between amorph-
ous and crystalline materials has to be considered. In a
melt condition, both classes show a linear dependency
of the specific volume from the temperature. On the con-
trary, for the solid phase, there are considerable differ-
ences. Because of crystallization, in semicrystalline
materials, the specific volume decreases exponentially
(shrinkage is caused by these dimensional variations)
with decreasing temperature, while amorphous materials
still present a linear dependency in the solid phase. This
difference is the reason for the greater shrinkage of crys-
talline thermoplastics respect the amorphous polymer.
The curves labeled with the number from 0 to 200
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART
represents different polymer packing pressures [MPa]:
the higher is the pressure, the lower is shrinkage.
Even if the present review does not include simulation
studies, the great amount of researches that investigated
the PVT behavior by modeling approach cannot be
ignored. Indeed, this approach permits to avoid
‘‘expensive time-consuming and time-and-error itera-
tions’’ as stated by Kate et al. [14]: outcomes have shown
that there is a good agreement between experimental and
simulation results [15]. As an example, it is possible to
indicate studies that have simulated the behavior of dif-
ferent materials: polymers [16–19], feedstocks [20, 21],
Si3Ni4 [22, 23], AlN [14], and fiber-reinforced polymers
[24]. Greene et al. [25] compared shrinkage from PVT
measurements of carbonyl iron feedstock with predic-
tions from a modified two-domain Tait-PVT model
and Kate et al. [26] estimated feedstock properties
according to different models.
Morphology contribution. Morphological aspects as the
different density of the crystalline phase before and after
the freezing [27] and the flow effect in terms of molecular
orientation [28], can affect shrinkage. In particular,
experimental results about molecular orientation have
shown that during the injection stage, the mold filling
process can confer to polymer chains a predominant
flow orientation because to the flow-induced crystalliza-
tion. Moreover, in a mass of injected polymer melt the
molecular chains were naturally oriented along the flow
direction.
Other authors confirmed this trend. During the injec-
tion stage, the formation of frozen layers in the melted
polymer in contact with the mold surface was observed.
The layers shown an oriented molecule chain that affect
shrinkage [29] and induced residual internal stresses
related to dimensional variations [30]. The layered struc-
ture was located on the external area of molded part,
and the core-to-skin volume ratio has to be considered
as a factor that strongly affects shrinkage [31].
Crystallinity contribution. The dimensional stability of
molded part was connected to crystallinity, and experi-
mental observations evidenced that molded part can
potentially continue to crystallize also day after the
molding stage [32]. Indeed, physically, the crystallization
continues below the melting point and above the glass-
transition temperature (Tg), and the more the material
crystallize, the more it shrinks.
As demonstrated by De Santis et al. [33], shrinkage
starts inside the mold as soon as the polymer layers
solidify. It was also demonstrated that the crystallinity
influenced the no-flow (sharp increase in viscosity value)
and solidification conditions, the formation of frozen
layer, the internal stresses, and the in-mold shrinkage.
Summary. It was possible to summarize the infor-
mation about material influence at the macroscale say-
ing that shrinkage was caused by the different PVT
behavior between amorphous and crystalline material
polymers [12, 13] that different densities of crystalline
665
phases [27] and frozen layers shown flow-induced
crystallization with flow-oriented molecules [28, 29]
and residual internal stressed located in the layers [30]
can determine shrinkage. The core-skin ratio affects
shrinkage as well [31].
Driven by crystallinity, material can continue to
shrink also day after be molded [32] and starts to
shrink inside the mold as the polymer starts the
solidification [33].
Table 1 reports the papers about material properties
that affect shrinkage at the macroscale.
Material properties at the microscale.
PVT trend. It is important to understand if the scale
can affect material behavior. Considering the PVT
trend, material at the microscale follows the conven-
tional behavior; as the packing pressure increased, the
shrinkage of semicrystalline materials decreased with
an exponential shape [34]. Author suggested that the
shape of curves was determined by binder and his
dominant behavior.
The study conducted by Yao and Kim [35] confirmed
the different behavior that polymeric material assumes
when flows in micro channels respects macro geometry
situation. The differences regarded a size-dependent vis-
cosity, wall slip, and surface tension. Results shown that
in microscale, polymer flows differently respect macro-
scale for the presence of intermolecular forces that occur
due to the scale. Due to these influences, it results in the
necessity to improve the pressure of 20–30% in micro-
scale with respect to standard filling conditions.
Polymer morphology contribution. Experimental results
shown that semicrystalline polymer shrinks more than
amorphous polymer [36] and morphology was influ-
enced by homogeneous dispersion of powder mixed with
polymer [37]. The percentage of powder can lead to
shrinkage, because the dimensional variations decreased
by increasing the powder loading [38].
A relationship between binder microstructure and
shrinkage was identified because a coarse flake binder
structure leads to high shrinks during the transition from
melt to solid state [39]. The use of microcrystalline wax
can confer to the binder a finer grain structure and a
TABLE 1.—Material properties influence at the macroscale. MAT reports
information about material characteristics (amorphous or crystalline)
and PHENOM is about the phenomenon examined (connected to shrink-
age).
Ref. MAT Phenom.
PVT [14, 15] Amorph. – Cryst.
Morphology [29] PP copolymer Freezing
[30] PE Molecular orientation
[31] PE Oriented layers
[32] PP Residual stresses
[33] PP Core-to-skin ratio
Crystallinity [34, 35] iPP Crystallinity
666
more isotropic micro structure for the feedstock. These
modifications permitted to obtain a final shrinkage
lower that coarse binder structure.
The relationship between polymer morphology and
shrinkage involved different aspects of molding processing
not always simply to identify. Particle size, powder load-
ing, but especially shear rate and polymer temperature
determined the feedstock viscosity [40], and the viscosity
was directly related to shrinkage of molded part [41].
A study concerned the morphology differences
between macro and microscale, was carried out by
Fanghui et al. [42]. By considering the crystallinity effects
in the flow direction of both macro and micro-parts of
specimens molded from isotactic polypropylene (iPP),
evidences shown that the through-thickness morphology
of micro-parts exhibited a similar ‘‘skin–core’’ type of
structure to the macro-parts. However, in the micro-
parts, a large fraction of shear layer was present (highly
oriented), whereas the macro-parts presented a large
fraction of core layer (randomly oriented). The shear
layer of micro-parts had a highly oriented ‘‘shish-kebab’’
structure (Fig. 7), with a pronounced orientation of iPP
chains within lamellae. The authors calculated that the
percentage thickness of the oriented region of the
micro-parts (which included both the skin layer and the
shear layer) was much greater than in the macro-parts
(90% vs. 15%). The complex combination of internal
stress and cooling rate affects the crystallization kinetics
(flow inducted), and the shear layer results with higher
degree of crystallinity respect the polymer core. As an
overall effect, also the degree of crystallinity was affected
by scale effects: in microscale, the degree of crystallinity
was higher with respect to macroscale. These different
degrees of orientation and crystallinity observed at the
macro and microscale indicate that shrinkage data
obtained at the macroscale was unlikely to be directly
FIGURE 7.—Shish-kebab structure [46] [Reprinted with permission from
author].
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
extrapolatable to the microscale. Furthermore, they indi-
cate the necessity of directionally dependent measures of
shrinkage for microscale components, as the orientation
is likely to produce anisotropy in the shrinkage behavior.
Same shish-kebab structure at the microscale was
identified by Jingsong et al. [43]. The crystallization
was influenced by shear stress history, and the core area
of molded parts presented a spherulitic structure, with
an increased density from wall to the center.
Crystallinity contribution. Studies demonstrated that
the scale influenced the crystallinity (in terms of crystal
size, degree, ratios), and it is likely that this affects
shrinkage also. As demonstrated by Giboz et al. [44] dur-
ing the analysis of semicrystalline polymer (high-density
polyethylene (HDPE)), crystallinity was influenced by
processing parameters (injection pressure, injection
speed, and mold temperature). By comparing the struc-
ture between micro and macroscale, differences in terms
of dimensions of polymer crystal and crystallinity degree
(both increased in microscale) were observed.
Again, processing parameters (injection speed, pack-
ing velocity, mold, and barrel temperature) influenced
micro morphology and crystallinity as demonstrated
by Chu et al. [45]. Final results evidenced that processing
parameters affected the thickness of and the molecular
orientation in the skin layer: these factors contributed
also to improve micro-part mechanical properties more
than in macro-parts, since the skin layer represented a
larger fraction of the overall thickness.
Summary. By summarizing the information about
material influence at the microscale, it was possible to
say that, concerning PVT trend, also at the microscale
the material shown different behavior between amorph-
ous and crystalline materials [34].
Considering morphology, conclusions shown that at
the microscale semicrystalline materials shrink more
than amorphous [36], and differences can be led by pow-
der loading [38] and degree of powder dispersion [37].
The grain structure was determined by the binder but
can be tuned (from coarse to fine) by mixing suitable
waxes: these adds influenced final shrinkage [39]. Dimen-
sional variations were connected to viscosity [41] and
affected by processing parameters [40].
The crystallinity contributed to shrinkage and was
affected by processing parameters [44]. The molding fac-
tors can increase the thickness of oriented layers (mol-
ecular chains) [45] respect overall sections. Besides the
higher fraction of oriented layers at the microscale
respect the macroscale promote higher shrinkage [42].
Table 2 reports the works that investigated the
material properties that affect shrinkage at the
microscale.
Processing Parameter Influences
The greatest number of works about shrinkage were
focused on the study of processing parameter influence
mainly for two reasons: first, for being effective, the
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART 667
TABLE 2.—Material properties that affect shrinkage at the microscale. temperature [47]. It was also commonly defined as the
PHENOM concerned the physical phenomenon associated to shrinkage. time from the end of packing stage toward ejection.
Ref. MAT Phenom.
This parameter affected shrinkage according to
Azdast and Behravesh [48] and was considered the
PVT [36] Amorph.–Cryst. second critical parameter after the holding pressure by
[37] PS Different flow Chen and Chang [49]. By using a hybrid optimization
behavior method that combined Taguchi methods, gray relational
Morphology [38, 40] ZnO þ PP Shrinkage analysis and principal component analysis, Mehat et al.
HDPE, PS, ABS
[50] investigated shrinkage of molded gear: results have
[39] Al2O3 þ PP Powder dispersion
[41] HDPE þ MW Binder structure
shown that this factor was the third critical parameter
[42] 316L feedst. Viscosity after melt temperature and packing pressure. As stated
[43] 316L feedst. Viscosity vs. shrinkage by Elleithy et al. [51] and Xu et al. [52], an increase of
[44] iPP Scale influence cooling time produces a decreasing of shrinkage. This
[45] PE Shish-kebab trend is likely due to an increased probability of mole-
Crystallinity [47] HDPE Scale influence cules to attain a more favorable configuration during
[48] HDPE, POM, PC Layers molecular increased time of cooling. The criticality of cooling time
oriented in terms of shrinkage was confirmed also by considering
techniques different from injection molding as
MUCELL (microcellular injection molding) [53].
determination of material property aspects that affect
shrinkage have to be followed by many trials (e.g., to Packing (or holding) time. Packing time was defined as
change the crystallinity degree, to tailor the correct feed- the time necessary for filling the mold cavity as full as
stock=polymer to be injected) that takes time and possible without causing undue stress on the molds or
requests specific customer competences; second, by using causing flash on the finished parts [47]. The packing time
the available statistical approaches, nowadays it is poss- is usually determined by the gate freeze time, because
ible to identify the critical processing parameters with a after gate freezing an additional time does not produce
high degree of precision and reducing shrinkage by opti- further effects. Besides it is important to set a suitable
mizing the factors. Indeed to deal with injection molding packing time during injection molding stages, because
(but more generally with every engineering process) if the packing pressure is released before complete gate
requests to manage with a great number of parameters, freezing (caused by too short packing time), some plastic
and only by adopting a methodic approach to the material could flow back from the cavity mold
shrinkage phenomenon was possible to determine what (backflow) by determining lacks of material in final
factors can be considered critical. The use of statistical specimen [33].
approaches (design of experiment or Taguchi methods, Different approaches (numerical simulation [54],
just to mention the most common) was an effectual Taguchi methods [55–57] coupled with hybrid optimiza-
way to operate, and every parameter identified as criti- tion [50], DoE [53, 58, 59]) and consequent experimental
cal, often, was the result of statistical treatments of data. validations, identified the packing time as a critical fac-
The second approach was preferred by many authors, tor. According to Yadav, Dravid, and Rajput [60], this
also considering the great range of feedstock=polymer factor resulted critical for amorphous (ABS) but not
tailored for every application. for semicrystalline polymer (PP). By analyzing polymer
wax, Rezavand and Behravesh [61] confirmed the critical
Processing parameters at the macroscale. When the influence in terms of shrinkage. Also by considering
mold was completely filled by injected material, the ceramic-based feedstock, (tungsten mixed with polymer
screw remains stationary for some time to keep the plas- wax [62]), this parameter confirmed to critically affect
tic in the mold under pressure (holding time). During the shrinkage. Considering the trend, to increase this
holding stage, an additional material was injected into parameter led to decrease shrinkage parallel to the flow
the cavity mold for compensating the shrinkage caused direction [52].
by cooling effects [46]: this sentence condenses the con- With a technique based on strain gauges, De Santis
cept that the most part of injection molding parameters et al. [33] measured the transient shrinkage history of
can potentially produce effects in terms of shrinkage. All an iPP rectangular slab as a function of the holding
the following factors: holding parameters, amount of pressure, and confirmed that shrinkage decreased by
materials, injection, cooling stage, and temperatures, increasing this factor.
have to be investigated for identifying an influence in
terms of shrinkage. Packing (or holding) pressure. Once the majority of the
The parameters that critically affect shrinkage were plastic (95%) has been injected using injection pressure,
organized by naming the factors, then by reporting the the injection machine shift to apply the packing (or
main results. holding) pressure. This pressure (lower than the injec-
tion pressure) permitted the final filling of the mold by
Cooling time. Cooling time was defined as the elapsed packing the molecules together. Holding pressure was
time required for the melt to reach its Vicat softening applied until the gate freezes: once that happened, the
668
pressure has no more effect on the molecules on the
other side of the gate. If holding pressure was decreased
before the gate freezes, the inversion of pressure gradi-
ents causes a dramatic decrease of pressure evolution
inside the cavity mold, and the material in the cavity
can be sucked back out of the cavity (‘‘backflow’’
phenomenon).
Studies that adopted Taguchi approach [10, 50, 55, 63,
64] or different methods [49, 53, 58, 59, 65–68] identified
this parameter as strongly critical. Shrinkage starts as
soon as melted polymer fills the cavity mold and was
critically influenced by holding pressure [33, 69].
By analyzing semicrystalline material (PP) [60, 70–73],
PP filled with CaCO3 [74], ceramic feedstock as Zr [75]
(in combined effect with mold temperature) or W [62],
authors found that packing pressure was the most influ-
ential factor (above different parameters considered).
The holding pressure affects the molding shrinkage of
a rectangular bar of carbonyl iron powder mixed with
polymer wax binder as confirmed by Greene and Heaney
[25]; authors stated that shrinkage decrease by increasing
the pressure.
Evidences shown that packing pressure can lead to
directional responses in terms of shrinkage: by improv-
ing holding pressure, transversal shrinkage of ceramic
molded parts was decreased [76]. Similar results were
reported by Pomerleau and Sanschagrin [77] that con-
firmed how high holding pressure leads to lower shrink-
age (both parallel to, than normal to, the flow direction).
Considering a square specimen geometry of an amorph-
ous polymer (ABS), this parameter affected shrinkage
both in longitudinal (first in ranking order) and trans-
versal (second in ranking order) [78]. As general trend,
it seems that to increase this parameter, promote the
decrease of shrinkage [79–81] and a reorientation of melt
molecules as observed by Pontes, Oliveira, and Pouzada
[70]. In any case, an improper set of this stage affects
shrinkage [82].
A contrary result was presented by Mulyana et al.
[83]. The authors focused their researches on the
reduction of injection molding cycle time by using cool-
ing water containing activated carbon pellets. Under this
particular condition, it was demonstrated that cycle time
and shrinkage can be efficiently reduced at a low pack-
ing pressure.
This parameter can be considered an important factor
that affects shrinkage since many studies shown the
same conclusions. The property to influence direction-
ally shrinkage even by rearranging molecular chains is
not negligible. Generally to improve this parameter
leads to decrease shrinkage, except the particular con-
ditions experimented by Mulyana et al. [83].
Melt temperature. Melt temperature was defined as the
temperature at which the polymer changes from solid to
liquid state, that is became fluid and can be injected in
the mold.
Authors [64, 72, 84–86] adopted Taguchi methods for
determining the influence of this parameter on shrink-
age: according to their results, melt temperature was
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
considered strong critical factor. Moreover melt tem-
perature affects both longitudinal and transversal
shrinkage [78].
Concerning different kind of polymers as semicrystal-
line (HDPE [54, 87], PS [72, 88], PP [49, 52, 60, 71]),
polymer wax [61], amorphous (ABS [60], PVC [56]), or
ceramic-based feedstock (W [62], Si3N4 [22]), experi-
mental results demonstrated that shrinkage was criti-
cally influenced by melt temperature.
An interesting effect of melt temperature was reported
by Guan and Huang [88] that described the relationship
between melt temperature and melt flow within the cav-
ity cross through the gate. Outcomes have shown that
this parameter influenced the amount of material inside
the cavity mold and consequently shrinkage because
under a more pronounced amount of melt flow, the area
near the gate can receive much material for compensat-
ing part shrinkage caused by material cooling.
Mold temperature. Mold temperature was defined as
the temperature of mold surface in contact with melt.
Authors [64, 86] investigated this parameter by using
Taguchi methods: results have shown that mold tem-
perature was considered a critical factor. Same result
was confirmed by adopting different statistical
approaches as the gray-fuzzy logic analysis [65]. Often
works that identified mold temperature as critical para-
meter, coupled this result with melt temperature: in these
cases the authors talk generally of ‘‘temperatures.’’
This parameter was considered critical for amorphous
(PS and PC [67], PMMA [63]) for semicrystalline poly-
mers (PP [67], Nylon 46 [55], HDPE [87]), or for ceramic
feedstock (Zr [75]), in combined effect with holding
pressure.
The confirmation of the importance of this factor was
reported by Chih, Pao, and Yan [78], which proved that
mold temperature affected shrinkage both in transversal
and longitudinal direction. About the trend, according
to Sepe [79], low mold temperature reduced shrinkage.
Injection pressure. Injection pressure was defined as the
pressure on the face of the injection screw when melt
material was injected into the mold [47].
By adopting a new methodology based on Reduced
Pareto Set Genetic Algorithm with Elitism technique
(RPSGAe), Fernandes, Pontes, Viana, and Gaspar-
Cunha [80] have shown that shrinkage decreased when
injection pressure increased. Similar conclusions were
stated by Elleithy et al. [51] (by investigating a semicrys-
talline polymer HDPE mixed with ceramic powder
CaCO3) and by Luo et al. [62] that analyzed a ceramic
feedstock.
This parameter has shown a directional influence in
terms of shrinkage, because affected transversal shrink-
age in reinforced PET specimens [89], and longitudinal
shrinkage in co-PP [52].
Injection speed (or velocity). The injection speed was
defined as the speed which the polymer was injected into
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART
the cavity mold, determined by the screw movement on
forward during melt injection.
The influence of this parameter was evaluated by
authors that considered longitudinal to, and transversal
to, the flow shrinkage: this parameter was the fourth fac-
tor affected shrinkage in transversal direction, and the
second factor that critically affected longitudinal shrink-
age [78]. Authors [52, 77] have shown that high values of
this parameter leads to high shrinkage in parallel to but
not in normal to the flow direction. An influence of this
parameter but with different effect with respect to the
previous authors was identified by Chen, Ho, and Fan
[76] by analyzing ceramic feedstock: to increase the
injection speed led to decrease the transversal shrinkage.
Further considerations. In the papers that considered
the influence of processing parameters in terms of mold-
ing shrinkage at the macroscale, it was possible to learn
also general indications about other aspects: com-
pression factors [88, 90, 91], appropriate mold design
[92–95] and suitable processing conditions [64, 94, 96,
97] can reduce and compensate shrinkage.
Some papers identified differences between parallel to
and normal to the flow shrinkage. According to Chen,
Su, and Lin [98], packing pressure, injection velocity,
melt and mold temperature affect shrinkage parallel to
the flow; melt and mold temperature, packing pressure
and injection velocity affect shrinkage normal to the flow.
According to Xu et al. [52] (by analyzing co-PP and
co-PP mixed, respectively, with CaCO3, SiO2, and nano-
powdered styrene butadiene rubber [PSBR]), the proces-
sing parameters affected shrinkage in the length but not in
the width and thickness. According to Yoshihara [89],
transversal shrinkage was affected by injection pressure.
According to Rajalingam, Bono, and Sulaiman [99],
shrinkage along length was affected by mold tempera-
ture, injection pressure, screw rotation speed, mold
temperature–injection pressure interaction, and mold
temperature–screw rotation speed interaction; while
along the width direction, shrink age was affected by
mold temperature, injection pressure, screw rotation
speed, mold temperature–screw rotation interaction.
Prashantha et al. [100] considered PP specimens molded
by injection molding, and longitudinal shrinkage was
between 2 and 4 times more (on the average) than shrink-
age in transversal direction. Transversal shrinkage was
critically affected by melt temperature, packing pressure,
mold temperature and injection velocity; longitudinal
shrinkage was affected by packing pressure, injection
velocity, melt temperature and mold temperature [78].
Concerning the trend, high injection velocity pro-
motes high shrinkage in parallel to but not in normal
to the flow direction [77]; to increase holding pressure
leads to decrease in shrinkage [67, 76, 77, 80, 81]; an
increase of pressure during the holding phase induces a
reorientation in the melt [70]; high packing pressure
and mold temperature can reduce shrinkage [63].
General trend seems to indicate that high processing
parameter values, except for the injection velocity,
causes shrinkage reduction.
669
At last, also the molding technique affects the shrink-
age. Considering the MUCELL process, this technique
reduces shrinkage with respect to CIM [101, 102], and
the supercritical fluid content adopted during injection
stage was a critical factor [58]. In MUCELL processing,
holding time, holding pressure, and mold temperature
affect shrinkage [53].
Table 3 reports the papers about processing parameter
that affects shrinkage at the macroscale. The paper
marked with the asterisk referred to works that reported
the interval of confidence of the statistical analysis
(95%).
Processing parameters at the microscale. Compared
to the macroscale, in the microscale authors investigated
also the replication quality. This aspect was connected to
shrinkage and often the two concepts overlap, because a
lack of precision in replication quality was determined
by final dimensional variations due to uncontrolled or
underestimated material shrink. These conclusions were
confirmed by Liu, Song, Wang, and Zhang [103] that
focused their researches on the replication quality of
micro-channels molded by mIM: final results have shown
that shrinkage phenomenon was the main reason for
lack of replication quality. Moreover, as proposed by
Xie, Shen, and Jiang [104], the replication quality was
mathematically defined with similar formula adopted
for shrinkage measurement, but with opposite interpret-
ation because a high replication quality is advisable.
The definitions of processing parameters were
reported only if not already indicated in the previous
section.
Injection pressure. Specimens molded with high values
of temperatures and pressures exhibited low crystallinity
and better feature replications [105].
By adopting Taguchi methods, Ong, Zhang, and Woo
[106] investigated the influence of processing parameters
in POM micro-rods molded part: injection pressure was
a shrinkage critical factor.
The critical influence of this parameter was confirmed
also by Huang and Chiu [107]. The authors considered
ceramic-based feedstock (SiO2, TiO2, and ZnO powders
mixed with PP binder in different percentages of
10-20-30 vol.%). Results identified the injection pressure
as factor that, by increasing the powder loading, can
decrease shrinkage.
Mold temperature. This parameter was considered as a
critical factor by Lee et al. (2010), Wang and Yang
(2011), and Wen and Wen (2005) [108–110]. Chang
and Faison [36] investigated amorphous (GPS and
ABS) and a semicrystalline polymer (HDPE), by study-
ing shrinkage both longitudinal and transversal to the
flow direction. The mold temperature was a critical
parameter both for GPS than ABS, and affects shrink-
age along the flow direction (the first in ranking order
for both the polymers) and transversal to the flow direc-
tion (ranked as the second and the first parameter,
respectively). Shrinkage of semicrystalline polymer was
670 D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK

TABLE 3.—Processing parameters influence at the macroscale.

Shrink. resp.
PAR Ref. MAT Approach Geometry (after a factor increase)

Cooling t [51] POM Plate with holes

[52] PP Taguchi Convex shell
[53]
PP Hybrid method Gear
[54] CaCO3þHDPE Square plate #
[56] PP DoE Box
[55] co-PP ASTM D955 #
Packing (or holding) t [65] W þ PW Stand. tensile, cylinder #
[64] PS þ PW
[57] HDPE Taguchi
[60]
PC=ABS Taguchi Thin shell part
[53]
PP Hybrid method Gear
[63]
ABS Taguchi Rectangular specimen
[35] Ipp Strain gages Rectangular geometry
[59]
PVC Taguchi Conical specimen
[58] Nylon 4,6 Taguchi Gear #
[62] PP DoE Box
[55] co-PP ASTM D955 #
[61]
PP DoE Box
[56] PP DoE Box
Packing (or holding) P [78] Zr þ vinyl acet. ANOVA Parallelopiped shape #
[65] W þ PW Stand. tensile, cylinder #
[27] Carbonyl iron þ PW Rectangular bar #
[12] PP Taguchi Box #
[53]
PP Hybrid method Gear
[85]
[67] PC=ABS Taguchi Thin wall
[66] PMMA Taguchi Rectangular cavity #
[52] PP Taguchi Convex shell
[71] Nylon, TVP DoE Rectangular plate #
[70] PC, PS, PP Tubular fittings #
[62] PP DoE Box
[56] PP DoE Box
[61]
PP DoE Box
[69] PP Taguchi
[68] PC=ABS Gray-fuzzy logic Thin shell
[72] PS, HDPE, PVC Online technique Tensile bar
[76] 95% PP þ 5% clay Taguchi
[75] PP Taguchi Rectangular specimen
[63]
PP Taguchi Rectangular specimen
[74] PP Model. and exp. valid. Rectangular bars #
[73] PP Rectangular plates #
[77]
PPþCaCO3 Taguchi – Ac. Em. (AE) Square specimen
[86] TP polyolefin
[79] LDPE þ Al2O3 T shape specimen # (n)
[80]
PP DoE Plate with constant and #
variable thickness
[81]
ABS ANOVA Square geometry # (p) # (n)
[84] PP Plate and tubular geom. #
[83] PS RPSGAe Rectangular geometry #
[82] #
[58] Nylon 4,6 Taguchi Gear #
[35] iPP Strain gages Rectangular geometry
Melt T [65] W þ PW Stand. tensile, cylinder #
[64] PSþPW
[90] HDPE Art. neural network Cable clamps "
[24] Si3N4 þ PP Box–Behnken Micro channels "
[67] PC=ABS Taguchi Thin wall #
[59]
PVC Taguchi Conical specimen
[89] 316L Taguchi

(Continued )
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART 671
TABLE 2.—Continued

Shrink. resp.
PAR Ref. MAT Approach Geometry (after a factor increase)

[88] PP Taguchi Circular shape specimen

[87] PP Taguchi Box #
[75] PS Taguchi Rectangular specimen
[81]
ABS ANOVA Square geometry " (n)
[57] HDPE Taguchi
[91] PS Taguchi Rectangular specimen #
[75] PS Taguchi Rectangular specimen
[63]
ABS, PP Taguchi Rectangular specimen
[55] co-PP ASTM D955 #
[52] PP Taguchi Convex shell
[74] PP Model and exp. valid. Rectangular bar #
Mold T [67] PC=ABS Taguchi Thin wall #
[78] Zr þ vinyl acet. ANOVA Parallelepiped shape "
[70] PC, PS, PP Tubular fittings #
[89] 316L Taguchi
[90] HDPE Art. neural network Cable clamps #
[68] PC=ABS Gray-fuzzy logic Thin shell
[81]
ABS ANOVA Square geometry
[82] "
[66] PMMA Taguchi Rectangular cavity #
[58] Nylon 4,6 Taguchi Gear #
Injection P [65] W þ PW Stand. tensile, cylinder #
[83] PS RPSGAe Rectangular geometry #
[55] co-PP ASTM D955 #
[92] PET Box and plate shapes # (n)
[54] CaCO3þHDPE Square plate #
Injection v [79] LDPE þ Al2O3 T-shaped specimen # (n)
[81]
ABS ANOVA Square geometry # (p)
[80]
PP DoE Plate with constant and variable thickness " (p)
[55] co-PP ASTM D955 #

affected by mold temperature both in longitudinal to
(the third in ranking order) and transversal to (the
second in ranking order) the flow direction.
By considering semicrystalline (POM [106, 111, 112],
HDPE and PP [105], HCPP and PC [113, 114], PP and
PA [111] or PA mixed with 316L [115]), amorphous
polymers (PMMA [105, 113, 116], PS [105, 113], COC
[117], ABS [118]) or ceramic feedstock (Zr [119]), results
identified the mold temperature as a critical parameter
affecting shrinkage. Also, authors [11, 112, 120] deter-
mined that by increasing this parameter, led to an
increased shrinkage. Same trend was determined by
Tay et al. [121] even considering a different material
(316L feedstock).
An indirect confirmation of critical influence of mold
temperature in terms of shrinkage was reported by
Huang and Chiu [107]. An analysis of ceramic-based
feedstocks (SiO2, TiO2, and ZnO in different percentages
of 10-20-30 vol.%) confirmed that an increase in mold
temperature permitted an increase the powder percent-
age to be injected, and the increased powder loading per-
mitted to decrease shrinkage as stated by Sotomayor,
Várez, and Levenfeld (2010) and Shaw and Edirisinghe
(1995) [122, 123].
A result in contrast about trend was reported by Nian
and Yang [124] that evidences show how high mold
temperature enhanced shrinkage and sink mark of
micro-molded sheet cavities.
Melt temperature. In the study conducted by Chang
and Faison [36], the authors investigated the influence
of five parameters in terms of shrinkage both longitudi-
nal and transversal to the flow direction, by molding
amorphous (GPS and ABS) and semicrystalline poly-
mers (HDPE). The melt temperature resulted in a criti-
cal parameter for GPS, and affected its shrinkage
along the flow direction (the second in ranking order)
and transversal to the flow direction (ranked as the first
factor) but not for ABS. Shrinkage of semicrystalline
polymer was affected by melt temperature both in longi-
tudinal to (the fourth in ranking order) and transversal
to (the third in ranking order) the flow direction.
This parameter affected shrinkage in semicrystalline
(POM [11], HDPE [105], HCPP [114], PC [113, 114],
PP [105]) amorphous (PMMA [105, 110, 113], PS [105,
113]) or cyclic olefin polymers [117].
About the trend, Tay et al. [121] determined that high
melt temperature increased the complete filling of 316L
micro-features. Even if the authors did not investigate
shrinkage, the measurements of microarray have shown
that final dimensions respected cavity mold design: it is
likely that melt temperature critically affects shrinkage
672
too, and high values permit to reduce dimensional varia-
tions. Also Chien [116] concluded that the accuracy of
PMMA micro-channels array increased with high
melt temperature values, and this factor was identified
as critical.
Holding time. The holding time critically affected
shrinkage according to Wen and Wen [110]. A combined
effect of holding time and mold temperature was ident-
ified as critical by Annicchiarico, Attia, and Alcock [11].
In the study conducted by Chang and Faison [36], the
authors investigated the influence of five parameters in
terms of shrinkage in both longitudinal and transversal
to the flow direction, by molding amorphous (GPS
and ABS) and semicrystalline polymers (HDPE). Hold-
ing time affects GPS shrinkage transversal to the flow
direction, then ABS and HDPE shrinkage both transver-
sal and longitudinal to the flow direction.
Packing (or holding) pressure. It is likely that this
parameter contributes to reduce shrinkage because of
the determination of the overpressure inside the cavity
mold at the end of injection stage. In mIM, the packing
pressure can help the filling of micro-cavities in the mold
insert to be filled with the polymer more than by apply-
ing a higher injection pressure. The holding pressure was
considered a critical parameter that affects shrinkage by
Wen and Wen and Surace et al. [110, 125].
About the material, this parameter affected shrinkage
of semicrystalline (POM [11, 126], PE [36], HCPP [114],
PC [113, 114], PP [105]) amorphous (PMMA [113, 116]
or PS [113]) and 316L-based feedstock [121].
About trend, to increase this factor leads to decrease
shrinkage (both in parallel and normal to the flow direc-
tion), as confirmed by Chen, Lin Su, Chiou, and Chiang
[118] by considering ABS square molded parts.
Filling time. Injection-molded aspheric lenses were
investigated by Wen and Wen [110]. The author investi-
gated six parameters, and filling time was the fourth
critical factor affecting shrinkage.
Cooling time. The cooling time was identified as critical
factor that affects shrinkage [110].
Barrel temperature. According to indications reported
in Ref. [127], the melt temperature was controlled by
the barrel temperatures, screw speed, injection speed,
and back pressure. Because of the heater jackets around
the barrel can regulate the point at which the material
will start to plasticize, authors considered the barrel tem-
perature as factor to be investigated.
This parameter can affect the replication quality
according to Shaa, Dimova, Griffithsa, and
Packianather [112].
Injection velocity (or speed). The injection speed
affects shrinkage in final products molded with m-IM
technique [112, 116]. Either considering semicrystalline
(PC [113]), amorphous material (PS and PMMA [113],
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
ABS [118]), or ceramic-based feedstock (Zr [119]) results
shown that injection velocity affected shrinkage. The
authors [119] stated how to increase this parameter
could reduce shrinkage of molded parts.
Metering size. The amount of material injected in the
mold (expressed in mm3) was defined as metering size.
The author [126] studied this parameter and its effects
during the mold of micro gears realized with a semicrys-
talline polymer (POM). The statistical treatments of
results have shown that metering size critically affects
shrinkage.
Filling flow (or filling flow rate). The flow rate was
defined as the volume of polymer that fills the cavity
per second (expressed in cm3 s1). Authors [128] demon-
strated that the filling of the molten polymer was
enhanced by applying a high flow rate, and this para-
meter was essential to achieve the good replication qual-
ity. Considered the connection between replication
quality and shrinkage, filling flow affects shrinkage as
well.
Further considerations. In the paper that considered the
influence of processing parameters in terms of shrinkage
at the microscale, it was possible to get also general indi-
cations about other aspects.
An improvement in terms of replication quality (con-
nected to shrinkage) can be obtained by improving mold
temperature according to different studies [114, 120,
121], by improving melt temperature and cavity pressure
[114], or by an increase of mold temperature, melt tem-
perature, injection velocity, and packing pressure [113].
As general trend, injection pressure decreased when
temperature parameters (melt and mold) increased.
According to Nian and Yang [124], the increased mold
temperature enhanced shrinkage, while the increased
pressures parameters reduced shrinkage.
Table 4 summarizes the papers about processing para-
meter that affects shrinkage at the microscale. The refer-
ences marked with the asterisk referred to works that
reported the interval of confidence of the statistical
analysis (95%).
Design Influences
Different authors investigated the influence of mold
and specimen design on shrinkage. As resulted by papers
reviewed, at the macroscale both solutions were imple-
mented, while at the microscale authors investigated
the specimen optimization.
Design solutions at the macroscale.
Specimen design. According to Sepe [79], the
thin-walled part shrinks lesser than thicker part. Parti-
cular geometries, as ribs, were investigated for designing
an optical CD pickup [92]: final considerations high-
lighted that the correct rib design, the suitable thickness,
and the correct injection location permitted to reduce
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART 673
TABLE 4.—Processing parameters influence at the microscale.

Shrink. (S) = replic.

quality (RQ) after
AR Ref. MAT Methodology Geometry factor increasing

Injection P [108] HDPE, PP (Crys.) Dimensional analysis, Micro and nano SCrys > SAm S#
PMMA, PS (Am.) roughness, feature features
replications, X-ray
[109] POM Taguchi Micro-rods
[110] SiO2, TiO2, and ZnO þPP Square specimen S#
Mold T [38] HDPE (Crys.) Taguchi Rectangular bar SCrys > SAm S"
ABS, PS (Am.) S#
[108] HDPE, PP (Crys.) Dimensional analysis, Micro and nano SCrys > SAm RQ "
PMMA, PS (Am.) roughness, feature features
replications, X-ray
[113] PMMA Taguchi Optical lenses
[109] POM Taguchi Micro-rods
[121] ABS Response Surface Square specimen S#
[112] POM þ10–20% GRF DoE
[115] PP (Crys.) Dimensional analysis Micro-features RQ "
RQ " (pin
geom.)
POM (Crys.)
ABS (Am.)
[124] 316LþLDPE Dimensional analysis Micro pins array RQ "
[110] SiO2, TiO2, and ZnO þPP Square specimen S#
[127] Sheet cavity S"
[119] PMMA Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
[123] HDPE, PP (Crys.) Dimensional analysis Micro-features SCrys > SAm RQ "
PMMA, PS (Am.)
[114] PP, PA, POM Taguchi Micro-gear
[13]
POM DoE Square plate S#
[118] 316LþPA Micro pillars array
[120]
COC ANOVA Diffraction gratings RQ "
[122] ZrO2 Cylinder
[111] Taguchi Skeletons structure
[117] HCPP, PC Dimensional analysis Microstructures RQ "
[116] PS, PMMA, PC Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
Melt T [38] PE (Crys.) Taguchi Rectangular bar SCrys > SAm S"
ABS (Am.) S#
PS (Am.) S#
[108] HDPE, PP (Crys.) PMMA, Dimensional analysis, Micro and nano SCrys > SAm RQ "
PS (Am.) roughness, feature features
replications, X-ray
[113] PMMA Taguchi Optical lenses
[124] 316LþLDPE Dimensional analysis Micro pins array RQ "
[119] PMMA Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
[117] HCPP, PC Dimensional analysis Micro-structures RQ "
[13]
POM DoE Square plate S#
[120]
COC ANOVA Diffraction gratings RQ "
[116] PS, PMMA, PC Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
Holding t [38] PE (Crys.) Taguchi Rectangular bar SCrys > SAm S"
ABS (Am.) S#
PS (Am.) S #(n)
[13]
POM DoE Square plate
[113] PMMA Taguchi Optical lenses
Holding=Packing P [113] PMMA Taguchi Optical lenses
[108] HDPE, PP (Crys.) PMMA, Dimensional analysis, Micro and nano SCrys > SAm S#
PS (Am.) roughness, feature features
replications, X-ray
[121] ABS Response Surface Square specimen S#
[117] HCPP, PC Dimensional analysis Microstructures RQ "
[128] POM, LCP DoE Dog bone specimen
[13]
POM DoE Square plate S#
[129] POM DoE Micro-gears

(Continued )
674 D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK

TABLE 2.—Continued

Shrink. (S) = replic.

quality (RQ) after
AR Ref. MAT Methodology Geometry factor increasing

[124] 316LþLDPE Dimensional analysis Micro pins array

[116] PS, PMMA, PC Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
[119] PMMA Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
[38] PE (Crys.) Taguchi Rectangular bar SCrys > SAm S"
ABS (Am.) S#
PS (Am.) S#
Filling t [113] PMMA Taguchi Optical lenses
Cooling t [113] PMMA Taguchi Optical lenses
Barrel T [115] PP (Crys.) Dimensional analysis Micro-features
POM (Crys.) RQ "
ABS (Am.)
Injection v [115] PP, POM (Crys.) Dimensional analysis Micro-features RQ "
ABS (Am.)
[119] PMMA Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
[121] ABS Response Surface Square specimen
[122] Zr (Inmafeed K1011) Cylinder S#
[116] PS, PMMA, PC Dimensional analysis Micro-channels RQ "
Metering s [129] POM DoE Micro-gears
Filling rate [131] Cyclic olefin Taguchi Micro-features RQ "

shrinkage. Besides, an increased rib thickness permitted
to decrease the warpage. Similar conclusions resulted
from Ref. [9] that stated how the specimen wall thickness,
its border radius, and ribs geometries affect shrinkage.
Even if sintering was not considered in the present
review, it was interesting to report that, according to
Amaranan and Manonukul’s [129] results, geometrical
parameters affect the shrinkage during the sintering also,
i.e., thickness shrinkage decreases as the aspect ratio of
width=thickness increases.
A confirmation of the connection between geometry
of molded parts and dimensional stability (shrinkage
and warpage) resulted from Kabanemi et al. [130] even
if the authors did not provide further details.
By considering the specimen shape, authors [131]
manufactured a four-cavity injection mold with convex,
concave, square, and fan-shaped parts. Final results
have shown that the convex and concave parts shrank
towards its geometry center; shrinkage of outer diameter
of fan-shaped part was larger than inner diameter, and
the angle of the fan-shaped parts becomes higher than
its original value.
Mold design. According to Othman, Hassan, Ibrahim,
and Li [132], high runner length produced higher shrink-
age. The authors investigated rectangular PP bars, and
experimental results evidenced that a heat losses
occurred in longer runner.
Concerning the mold elements, Hussin, Mohd Saad,
Hussin, and Mohd Dawi [95] identified the running size
as critical parameter. Moreover, Chang et al. [94] stated
that an improved gate design reduced shrinkage. Similar
conclusions were reported by Huang, Yang, and Li [93]
about position gate. According to Stan, Tulcan,
Tulcan, and Iclanzan [9], mold characteristics (i.e., best
gate position, runner diameter, smoothest flow path)
have to be optimized for reducing shrinkage.
A not well-designed mold can lead to asymmetrical
mold temperature conditions caused by unbalanced heat
transfer between the two mold sides: these conditions
enhanced shrinkage and warpage [133]. For minimizing
these effects, the authors built a numerical analysis
model of discontinuous-thickness-variation. Theoretical
results were validated experimentally and demonstrated
that both shrinkage and warpage increased by varying
the ratio depth=thickness in mold cavity. The difference
of mold temperature between the mold core and cavity
side contributed to warpage and shrinkage. The cooling
channel shape affects the thermal efficiency of the mold,
and consequently shrinkage as well [134].
More generally as demonstrated by Harris et al. [135],
also the material of the mold affects shrinkage. By using
a metal (Al) and an epoxy mold, the mold temperature
profile varied. As a result, shrinkage varied because of
the different distribution of heat inside the mold (in crys-
talline more than amorphous polymers).
Summary. Summarizing, the papers that investigated
the effect of design at the macroscale have shown that
wall thickness [79], wall aspect ratio [129], ribs or border
radius [9] affect shrinkage. A connection between speci-
men geometry and shrinkage was verified [130, 131].
Regarding the mold design, gate position and runner
diameter [9], and the balanced heat distribution inside
the mold [133] affects shrinkage as well.
Design solutions at the microscale.
Specimen design. Specimen design can affect shrinkage
at the microscale. The presence of holes decreased the
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART 675
TABLE 5.—Design influence.

Scale Ref. MAT Method Factor Factor effect in shrinkage

Micro Specimen [39] Al2O3 (A-16SG) Dimensional An. Thickness

[45] PE Dimensional An. Holes "(behind the holes)
[139] POM Dimensional An. Ribs "(rib base)
[140]
PC=ABS, POM, PA66 Taguchi Ribs
Macro Mold [98]
PC=ABS Taguchi Runner size "
[97] ABS 3D Thick. Contr. Meth. Gate design
[96] PS Gate design
[137] Cooling runner shape
[11] Gate, runner, wall thick.
[135] PP Dimensional An. Gate location
[136] ABS Disc. Thick. Var. Heat distribution
[138] Mold Mat. affect shrink. Mold temp. profile
Specimen [95] Wall thick., ribs
[82] Thickness #
[132] 316L Aspect ratio #
[133] PC, HDPE Dimensional An. Box Geometry
[134] PP Dimensional An. Concavity, convexity
[11] Ribs

packing pressure effect in the zone behind the hole, and currently submitted by the authors of the present
as consequence shrinkage in these areas increased [43]. review for investigating the effect of powder loading
The base of rib geometries has shown an increased on shrinkage.
shrinkage with respect to the upper part because this
area was the last to solidify [136].
Ribs with different geometries (triangular, trap- TABLE 6.—Critical factors that affect molding shrinkage in injection
ezoidal, and rectangular section) and layout angle with molding.
respect to the flow direction (0 , 45 , 90 ) were con-
Branches Sub-branches Scale Factors
sidered for determining their influence in terms of
shrinkage and warpage by Erzurumlu and Ozcelik Material CrystallinityMacro Crystallinity
[137]. Conclusions demonstrated that triangular and rec- properties Micro Scale influence, oriented molecular
tangular rib-cross section (45 , 90 ) reduced dimensional layers, shish-kebab
variations in amorphous (PC=ABS) and semicrystalline Morphology Macro Freezing, molecular orientation,
(PA66) polymers; while trapezoidal rib-cross-section oriented layers, residual stresses,
geometry (45 , 90 ) was the most suitable geometry for core-to-skin ratio
minimizing dimensional variations in POM polymer. Micro Shrinkage, powder dispersion,
It was observed that larger shrinkage occurred in the binder structure, viscosity
PVT Macro Differences between amorphous and
thin and narrow part of the specimen because of frozen semi-crystal polymers
layer, while on the contrary, the thick specimen part had Micro Different flow behavior, differences
shown smaller shrinkage because of the more easy mol- between amorphous and
ten filling [37]. semicrystal polymers
Table 5 summarizes the design factors that affect Processing Processing Macro Cooling time, packing pressure,
shrinkage. The references marked with the asterisk parameters packing time, melt temperature,
referred to works that reported the interval of confidence mold temperature, injection
of the statistical analysis (95%). pressure, injection speed
Micro Injection pressure, mold
temperature, melt temperature,
DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK packing time, packing pressure,
The literature reviewed can be summarized in the filling time, cooling time, injection
scheme reported in Table 6. speed, metering size, barrel
Table 7 reports the factors that affected shrinkage temperature
Design Mold Macro Runner size, gate design, cooling
within the interval of confidence (95%).
runner, wall thickness, heat
distribution, mold temperature
Material Properties profile
Micro —
In the present review, shrinkage was investigated
Specimen Macro Wall thickness, ribs, A=R, geometry,
regardless of the material (polymer or feedstock) even concave–convex.
if the influence of binder=filler content in terms of Micro Holes, ribs, thickness.
dimensional variation is known. Additional work is
676 D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK

As resulted from Table 7, no material aspects critically
affect shrinkage within the interval of confidence.
Despite this, evidences have shown that material proper-
ties can drive shrinkage behavior. The apparent contra-
diction is likely to derive from the chemical point of view
adopted in these studies. Indeed the works that analyzed
the material influence were conducted by considering
polymer chains, morphology structure, crystallinity, or
rheology, and this may have led to identify trends rather
than factor values because based on aspects not simply
controllable: as a result, the researches that considered
these aspects have connected qualitatively the factors
with shrinkage but did not quantify their influence. This
did not mean that the results reported in Table 6 were
wrong but only that was not possible to quantify the
statistical influence of those factors on shrinkage.
Crystallinity. It was demonstrated that the crystallinity
influenced the formation of frozen layer, the internal
stresses and the in-mold shrinkage. By comparing the
structure between micro and macroscale, differences in
terms of dimensions of polymer crystal and crystallinity
degree (both increased in microscale) were observed.
Morphology. It was demonstrated that the scale did
not affect the structure of molded parts but the ratio
between the oriented external layers (skin) and the ran-
domly oriented molecules (core): at the microscale, a
higher presence of oriented layers with respect to macro-
scale was observed. The oriented layers shown a
flow-induced crystallization with a highly oriented
‘‘shish-kebab’’ structure, and this led to different shrink-
age by analyzing macro or microscale.
talline thermoplastics with respect to the amorphous
polymer, and same trend was observed both in macro
than microscale.
Processing
The processing parameters that affect shrinkage were
summarized in Table 8.
The arrows represent the greater part of trend
reported in papers, and indicate whether a factor
increasing causes an increase (") or decrease (#) in
shrinkage or replication quality. The double arrows
("#) indicate the balanced presence of both responses
and the impossibility to identify a clear trend.
In m-IM, the presence of extra parameters (e.g., plun-
ger control and melt barrel storage settings) makes the
process and the optimization more difficult to optimize
with respect to CIM: this explains the higher number
of critical factors as resulted in Table 8.
Despite of the greater part of works adopted a statisti-
cal methodology, not all the papers reported the interval
of confidence value. Table 9 reports the critical factors
by considering an interval of confidence of 95%.
The situation of processing parameters differs from
that resulted for the material property. This was likely
due to the engineering point of view adopted during
the study of processing parameter influence. Indeed, in
contrast to the chemical, the engineering approach con-
ducted studies based on statistical models, by setting the
factors and by recording the relative outcomes. Under
these conditions, every result was identified within a
defined interval of certainty, and it was possible to deter-
mine and quantify the influence of each parameter.

PVT. The PVT graph explained the origin of shrink- Macro. At the macroscale, general trend indicates that
age as caused by thermodynamic behaviors. Semicrystal- shrinkage was decreased by increasing the critical
line polymers differ from amorphous because of
crystallization of solid phase, the specific volume of TABLE 8.—Critical processing parameters. Where reported, the arrows
semicrystalline materials decreases exponentially indicate the response of shrinkage (S) and replication quality (RQ)
(shrinkage was caused by these dimensional variations) followed by a factor increasing.
with decreasing temperature while amorphous materials
S RQ
present a linear dependency in the solid phase. This dif-
ference was the reason for the greater shrinkage of crys- Processing parameters Macro Cooling time #
Packing pressure #
Packing time #
TABLE 7.— Factors that show critical influence within the interval of Melt temperature #
confidence of 95%. Mold temperature #
Critical factors within the interval
Injection pressure #
Branches Subbranches Scale of confidence Injection speed "#
Micro Injection pressure # —
Processing Processing Macro Cooling time, packing Mold temperature "# "
parameters pressure, packing time, melt Melt temperature # "
temperature, mold Packing time "# —
temperature, injection speed Packing pressure # "
Micro Mold temperature, melt Filling time — —
temperature, packing time, Cooling time — —
packing pressure Injection speed # "
Design Mold Macro Runner size Metering size — —
Specimen Micro Ribs Barrel temperature — "
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART
TABLE 9.—Factors that show critical influence within the interval of
confidence of 95%.
S RQ
Processing parameters Macro Cooling time # investigated at all, because no data referred to shrinkage
Packing pressure # in specimens below 10 mm. The state-of-the-art analysis
Packing time # highlighted that the three area indicated (statistical
Melt temperature # approach for identifying material property influences,
Mold temperature #
Injection speed "#
Micro Mold temperature "# "
Melt temperature # "
Packing time "# — CONCLUSION
Packing pressure # "
factors. Temperature- and packing (holding)-related
parameters were shown to be topic parameters that
determined shrinkage. Cooling time and injection speed
were shown to held other critical parameters.
Micro. The results reported in Table 9 have shown a
greater presence of double arrows ("#) in micro respect
macroscale regarding shrinkage behavior. This is likely
due to the statistical noise at the microscale that makes
difficult to identify a clear trend of critical factors that
affect shrinkage [138]. For simplifying the study of factor
effects in such scale, authors also considered the repli-
cation quality (inversely related to shrinkage): to increase
the critical factor value causes a shrinkage decrease.
Also at the microscale, temperature- and
packing-related parameters demonstrated to be critical
factors that can lead the final shrinkage.
Design
Results seem to indicate that authors adopted a differ-
ent design approach for reducing shrinkage: at the
microscale, solutions were rather focused on specimen
optimization, whilst at the macroscale also mold design
optimization was considered.
Macro. Within the interval of confidence, as resulted
from Table 7, the runner diameter critically affects
shrinkage, respectively, at the macroscale. This factor
affected the heat exchange inside the cavity mold.
Micro. Within the interval of confidence, the ribs
shape (triangular, rectangular, and semicircular) criti-
cally affects shrinkage at the microscale. The ribs pre-
sented the same area and length but the shape affected
shrinkage.
Future Works
By considering the amount of papers reviewed, it
resulted that some aspects were not properly investi-
gated. The study of the material influence was conducted
without statistical approaches, and this has resulted in
the absence of outcomes valid within the interval of con-
fidence: the aspects connected to material behavior were
677
identified but not quantified. The greater part of authors
considered injection molding rather than PIM, and this
comported a lack of information about shrinkage on
metal and ceramic feedstocks. Other aspects were not
more tests in PIM and specimens below 10 mm) needs
to be further investigated.
This paper aimed at assessing factors that determined
shrinkage in injection molding. Studies demonstrated
that the scale affected this phenomenon, because the
scale determines the skin-to-core ratio and the final
shrinkage behavior. The scale determined also the
degree of precision for identifying the trend of critical
factors within the interval of confidence: the microscale
increased the statistical noise by making more difficult
to identify a clear trend. Three branches were investi-
gated (material properties, processing parameters, and
design of both mold and specimen), but only the analysis
of processing parameters and design gave results that
affect shrinkage by considering the interval of confi-
dence of 95%: by considering this parameter, the overall
factors decreased. The assumption of interval of confi-
dence cancelled the factors caused by material influence
because not all the studies conducted in this area used a
statistical approach. In the processing parameter
branch, the packing- and temperature-related factors
seem to be consistently present: at the macroscale, they
presented the same trend (shrinkage was reduced by
increasing factors), at the microscale, the trend has
shown the presence of both responses (shrinkage was
reduced by increasing or decreasing factors values).
From design point of view, runner size and ribs affect
shrinkage at the macro and microscale, respectively.
An overall outlook to the state of the art has shown the
absence of statistical approach adopted for investigating
the material influence, a number of works that investigated
shrinkage of powder-molded parts (ceramic and metal)
that could be increased and a lack of studies that investi-
gated shrinkage in parts with dimensions below 10 mm.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Cranfield Univer-
sity to enable this research to be conducted, the Elsevier
editor, and Dr. Meijer H.E.H. for the kind permission to
use their material.
REFERENCES
1. Gabriel, K.J.; Ed. Engineering Microscopic Machines, 150th
Anniversary Issue, Scientific American: Technology in the
21st Century Scientific American: New York, 1995.
2. Micro Engineering Solutions, MICROMOLDING – The
Growth Market for Injection Molders in the Near
Future. http://www.microengineeringsolutions.com/mes_
678
news_events/micromolding-the-growth-market-for-injection-
molders-in-the-near-future/ (accessed June 2013).
3. GIA. Metal and Ceramic Injection Molding; San Jose, CA:
Global Industry Analysts, Inc., 2011.
4. Anonymous. Shrinkage and Warpage. http://www.dc.engr.
scu.edu/cmdoc/dg_doc/develop/process/physics/b3500001.
htm (accessed September 2013).
5. Anonymous. Molding Sink Mark and Void. http://view
mold.com/injection%20mold%20management/Injection%20
molding%20defects/Molding%20sink%20mark%20and%20
void.html (accessed December 2013).
6. Anonymous. Kinetics – MIM Design Guide. http://
www.kinetics.com/guide/ (accessed December 2013).
7. Shen, C.; Wang, L.; Cao, W.; Qian, L. Investigation of the
effect of molding variables on sink marks of plastic injection
molded parts using Taguchi DOE technique. Polymer-
Plastics Technology and Engineering 2007, 43 (3), 219–225.
8. Fischer, J.M. Handbook of Molded Part Shrinkage and
Warpage – Determination of Shrinkage; Beckley, B., Ed.,
Plastics Design Library=William Andrew Pub.: Norwich,
NY, 2003; p. 10.
9. Stan, D.; Tulcan, A.; Tulcan, L.; Iclanzan, T. Influence
factors on the dimensional accuracy of the plastic parts.
Materiale Plastice 2008, 45 (1), 119–124.
10. Liu, F.; Zeng, S.; Zhou, H.; Li, J. A study on the distinguish-
ing responses of shrinkage and warpage to processing
conditions in injection molding. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science 2012, 125 (1), 731–744.
11. Annicchiarico, D.; Attia, U.M.; Alcock, J.R. A method-
ology for shrinkage measurements in micro-injection
moulding. Polymer Testing 2013, 32, 769–777.
12. Wang, J.; Xie, P.; Yang, W.; Ding, Y. Online
pressure-volume-temperature measurements of poly-
propylene using a testing mold to simulate the
injection-molding process. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science 2010, 118 (1), 200–208.
13. Wang, Y. PVT Properties of Polymers for Injection Mold-
ing. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/33643/InTech-Pvt_
properties_of_polymers_for_injection_molding.pdf (access
February 15, 2013).
14. Kate, K.H.; Onbattuvelli, V.P.; Enneti, R.K.; Lee, S.K.;
Park, S.J.; Atre, S.V. Measurements of powder–polymer mix-
ture properties and their use in powder injection molding
simulations for aluminum nitride. JOM 2012, 64 (9),
1048–1058.
15. Azdast, T.; Behravesh, A.H.; Mazaheri, K.; Darvishi, M.M.
Numerical simulation and experimental validation of
residual stress induced constrained shrinkage of injection
molded parts. Polymery 2008, 53 (5), 304–310.
16. Chang, R.Y.C.H.; Chen, C.H.; Su, K.S. Modifying the Tait
equation with cooling-rate effects to predict the
pressure-volume-temperature behaviors of amorphous
polymers: modeling and experiments. Polymer Engineering
& Science 1996, 36 (5), 1789–1795.
17. Kirchberg, S. Simulation and injection molding of
ring-shaped polymer bonded nickel braze metal composite
preforms based on rheological and thermal analyses. Open
Journal of Composite Materials 2013, 3, 24–29.
18. Sin, L.T.; Rahman, W.A.W.A.; Rahmat, A.R.; Ting Tee, T.;
Bee, S.T.; Yu, L.C. Computer aided injection moulding
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
process analysis of polyvinyl alcohol–starch green
biodegradable polymer compound. Journal of Manufactur-
ing Processes 2012, 14, 8–19.
19. Zuidema, H.; Peters, G.W.M.; Meijer, H.E.H. Influence of
cooling rate on pVT-data of semicrystalline polymers.
Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2001, 82 (5), 1170–1186.
20. Binet, C.; Heaney, D.F.; Spina, R.; Tricarico, L. Experi-
mental and numerical analysis of metal injection molded
products. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2005,
164–165, 1160–1166.
21. Ahn, S.; Chung, S.T.; Park, S.J.; German, R.M. Modeling
and simulation of metal powder injection molding. In
ASM Handbook, vol. 22B – Metal Process Simulation,
ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2010; pp.
343–357.
22. Lenz, J.; Enneti, R.K.; Park, S.; Atre, S.V. Powder injection
molding process design for UAV engine components using
nanoscale silicon nitride powders. Ceramics International
2014, 40 (1 Part A), 898–900.
23. Lenz, J.; Enneti, R.K.; Onbattuvelli, V.P.; Kate, K.H.;
Martin, R.; Atre, S.V. Powder injection molding of ceramic
engine components for transportation. JOM 2012, 64 (3),
388–392.
24. Lee, D.J.; Kim, M.W.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, S.H.; Youn, J.R.
Three dimensional flow simulation and structural analysis
on stiffness of fiber reinforced anisotropic parts.
Korea-Australia Rheology Journal 2010, 22 (2), 95–103.
25. Greene, C.D.; Heaney, D.F. The PVT effect on the final sin-
tered dimensions of powder injection molded components.
Materials and Design 2007, 28, 95–100.
26. Kate, K.H.; Enneti, R.K.; Onbattuvelli, V.P.; Atre, S.V.
Feedstock properties and injection molding simulations of
bimodal mixtures of nanoscale and microscale aluminum
nitride. Ceramics International 2013, 39, 6887–6897.
27. Tan, H.; Yu, Y.; Xing, L.; Zhao, L.; Sun, H. Density and
shrinkage of injection molded impact polypropylene copoly-
mer=coir fiber composites. Polymer – Plastics Technology
and Engineering 2013, 52 (3), 257–260.
28. Isayev, A.I.; Kwon, K.; Kim, K.H. Anisotropic shrinkage in
injection molding of various polyesters. In Annual Technical
Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3,
Charlotte, NC, USA, May 7–11 2006; pp. 1190.
29. Chang, Y.; Liu, C.S.; Huang, S.T.; Huang, C.; Chen, M.;
Yang, W. Dynamic property of the frozen-layer and its
effects on warpage in injection molded parts. In Annual
Technical Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings,
Vol. 5, Chicago, IL, USA, June 22–24 2009; p. 2905.
30. Giroud, T.; Vincent, M. Evaluation of residual stresses in
short fiber reinforced thermoplastic molded parts. Mecani-
que et Industries 2004, 5 (4), 481–487.
31. Shen, C.; Kramschuster, A.; Ermer, D.; Turng, L. Study
of shrinkage and warpage in microcellular co-injection
molding. International Polymer Processing 2006, 21 (4),
393–401.
32. Sepe, M. Dimensional stability after molding – Part 2.
Plastics Technology 2013, 59 (2), 17–19.
33. De Santis, F.; Pantani, R.; Speranza, V.; Titomanlio, G.
Analysis of shrinkage development of a semicrystalline poly-
mer during injection moulding. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 2010, 49, 2469–2476.
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART
34. Greene, C.D.; Heaney, D.F. The PVT effect on final sintered
MIM components. In Annual Technical Conference–
ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1, Chicago, IL,
USA, May 16–20 2004, p. 713.
35. Yao, D.; Kim, B. Simulation of the filling process in micro
channels for polymeric materials. Journal of Micromechanics
and Microengineering 2002, 12 (5), 604–610.
36. Chang, T.C.; Faison, E. A study of the effect of process
conditions on the shrinkage of plastic parts in injection
molding by the Taguchi method. Polymer Engineering &
Science May 2001, 41 (5), 703–710.
37. Yang, S.Y.; Huang, C.K.; Lin, B.C.; Wei, W.C.J. Kneading
and molding of ceramic microparts by precision powder
injection molding (PIM). Journal of Applied Polymer Science
2006, 100 (2), 892–899.
38. Huang, C.K.; Chiu, S.W. Formability and accuracy of
micropolymer compound with added nanomaterials in
microinjection molding. Journal of Applied Polymer Science
2005, 98 (5), 1865–1874.
39. Zhang, J.; Huang, B.; Li, Y.; Li, S. Influence of micro-
crystalline wax on properties of MIM multi-component
wax matrix binder. Xiyou Jinshu Cailiao Yu Gongcheng=Rare
Rare Metal Materials and Engineering 2004, 33 (10), 1084–
1088.
40. Amin, S.Y.M.; Jamaludin, K.R.; Muhamad, N. Rheological
properties of SS316L MIM feedstock prepared with different
particle sizes and powder loadings. The Institution of
Engineers, Malaysia 2009, 71 (2), 59–63.
41. Zauner, R.; Binet, C.; Heaney, D.F.; Piemme, J. Variability
of feedstock viscosity and its correlation with dimensional
variability of green powder injection moulded components.
Powder Metallurgy 2004, 47 (2), 151–156.
42. Fanghui, L.; Chao, G.; Xian, W.; Xinyuan, Q.; Hong, L.;
Jie, Z. Morphological comparison of isotactic polypropylene
parts prepared by micro-injection molding and conventional
injection moulding. Polymers for Advanced Technologies
2012, 23, 686–694.
43. Jingsong, C.; Hrymak, A.; Kamal, M.R. Microstructural
characteristics of micro-injection molded thermoplastics. In
Annual Technical Conference – ANTEC, Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 4, Cincinnati, OH, USA, May 6–11
2007; pp. 1973.
44. Giboz, J.; Copponnex, T.; Mélé, P. Microinjection molding
of thermoplastic polymers: a review. Journal of Micromecha-
nics and Microengineering 2007, 17 (6), R96–R109.
45. Chu, J.; Kamal, M.R.; Derdouri, S.; Hrymak, A. Effects of
processing conditions on mechanical properties and
crystallinity of micro injection molded thermoplastics. In
Technical Papers, Regional Technical Conference – Society
of Plastics Engineers, Vol. 4, Milwaukee, WI, USA, May
4–8 2008; p. 2451.
46. Injection Moulding Process. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.
ac.in/bitstream/10603/3400/8/08_chapter%202.pdf (accessed
June 2013).
47. Autronic Plastic, I. Glossary of Plastic Injection Moul-
ding. http://www.apisolution.com/images/glossary_plastic_
injection_molding_engineering_manufacturing.pdf (accessed
January 2013).
48. Azdast, T.; Behravesh, A.H. An analytical study of con-
strained shrinkage of injection molded semi-crystalline
679
plastic parts. Polymer – Plastics Technology and Engineering
2008, 47 (12), 1265–1272.
49. Chen, C.-A.; Chang, S. Shrinkage analysis on convex shell
by injection molding. International Polymer Processing
2008, 23 (1), 65–71.
50. Mehat, N.M.; Kamaruddin, S.; Othman, A.R. A study of
hybrid optimization of injection moulding process
parameters for plastic gear. Advanced Materials Research
2012, 591–593, 2135–2138.
51. Elleithy, R.; Ali, I.; Al-Haj Ali, M.; Al-Zahrani, S.M. Differ-
ent factors affecting the mechanical and thermo-mechanical
properties of HDPE reinforced with micro-CaCO3. Journal
of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2011, 30 (9), 769–780.
52. Xu, Y.; Yang, W.; Xie, B.; Liu, Z.; Yang, M. Effect of injec-
tion parameters and addition of nanoscale materials on the
shrinkage of polypropylene copolymer. Journal of Macromo-
lecular Science, Part B: Physics 2009, 48 (3), 573–586.
53. Kramschuster, A.; Cavitt, R.; Ermer, D.; Chen, Z.; Turng,
L.S. Quantitative Study of Shrinkage and Warpage Beha-
vior for Microcellular and Conventional Injection Mold-
ing. http://www.trexel.com/download/UWisconsinStudy.
pdf (accessed Apr 24, 2013).
54. Othman, M.H.; Shamsudin, S.; Hasan, S. The effects of
parameter settings on shrinkage and warpage in injection
molding through cadmould 3D-F simulation and Taguchi
method. Applied Mechanics and Materials 2012, 229–231,
2536–2540.
55. Jayanarayanan, K.; Karthick, H.S.; Suganya, V.;
Shivashankari, A.L.; Bhagawan, S.S. Optimization of pro-
cess parameters of an injection moulded gear using Taguchi
methodology. In Annual Technical Conference – ANTEC,
Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, 2006; pp. 1088.
56. AlKaabneh, F.A.; Barghash, M.; Mishael, I. A combined
analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and Taguchi experi-
mental design (TED) for plastic injection molding process
settings. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 2012, 1–16.
57. Oktem, H.; Erzurumlu, T.; Uzman, I. Application of
Taguchi optimization technique in determining plastic
injection molding process parameters for a thin-shell part.
Materials and Design 2007, 28 (4), 1271–1278.
58. Kramschuster, A.; Cavitt, R.; Ermer, D.; Chen, Z.; Turng, L.
Warpage comparison between microcellular and conven-
tional injection molding. In Annual Technical Conference –
ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, Boston, MA,
USA, May 1–5 2005; pp. 151.
59. Kramschuster, A.; Cavitt, R.; Ermer, D.; Chen, Z.B.;
Turng, L. Effect of processing conditions on shrinkage and
warpage and morphology of injection moulded parts using
microcellular injection moulding. Plastics, Rubber and
Composites 2006, 35 (5), 198–209.
60. Yadav, A.J.; Dravid, S.V.; Rajput, V.D. Taguchi technique
in optimization of injection molding process parameters
for manufacturing plastic parts. In Proceeding of the
NCNTE-2012, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, February
24–25 2012.
61. Rezavand, S.A.M.; Behravesh, A.H. An experimental inves-
tigation on dimensional stability of injected wax patterns of
gas turbine blades. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 2007, 182, 580–587.
680
62. Luo, T.G.; Qu, X.H.; Qin, M.L.; Ouyang, M.L. Dimension
precision of metal injection molded pure tungsten.
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard
Materials 2009, 27 (3), 615–620.
63. Wu, C.; Huang, Y. The influence of cavity deformation on
the shrinkage and warpage of an injection-molded part.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
2007, 32 (11–12), 1144–1154.
64. Jin, J.; Yu, H.Y.; Lv, S. Optimization of plastic injection
molding process parameters for thin-wall plastics injection
molding. Advanced Materials Research 2009, 69–70,
525–529.
65. Chiang, K.; Chang, F. Application of grey-fuzzy logic on the
optimal process design of an injection-molded part with a
thin shell feature. International Communications in Heat
and Mass Transfer 2006, 33 (1), 94–101.
66. Alam, M.M.; Kumar, D. Reducing shrinkage in plastic
injection moulding using Taguchi method in Tata magic
head light. International Journal of Science and Research
2013, 2 (2), 107–110.
67. Pontes, A.J.; Pouzada, A.S. Ejection force in tubular
injection moldings. Part I: Effect of processing conditions.
Polymer Engineering and Science 2004, 44 (5), 891–897.
68. Passilla, J.; Zupancic, K. Warpage study on two-shot
injection molding. In Annual Technical Conference –
ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 10, Boston, MA,
USA, May 1–5 2005; pp. 93.
69. Koppi, K.A.; Barger, M.A.; Chang, D.; Shields, C. In-mold
part shrinkage rate measurement. In Annual Technical
Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1,
Cincinnati, OH, USA, May 6–11 2007; pp. 561.
70. Pontes, A.J.; Oliveira, M.J.; Pouzada, A.S. The effect of
holding pressure on the shrinkage and birefringence of
injection moulded polypropylene plates. Materials Science
Forum 2004, 455–456, 814–817.
71. Trejo, M.; Villablanca, V.; Sánchez, J.J.; Morales, R.A.;
Villarroel, S.; Gordillo, A. Use of linear relationships and
simulation to assess the effect of the injection parameters
on the dimensions of polypropylene test specimens. In
Technical Papers, Regional Technical Conference – Society
of Plastics Engineers, Vol. 1, Milwaukee, WI, USA, May
4–8 2008; pp. 445.
72. Altan, M. Reducing shrinkage in injection moldings via the
Taguchi, ANOVA and neural network methods. Materials
and Design 2010, 31 (1), 599–604.
73. Othman, M.H.; Hasan, S.; Muhammad, W.N.A.W.;
Zakaria, Z. Optimising injection moulding parameter setting
in processing polypropylene-clay composites through
Taguchi method. Applied Mechanics and Materials 2013,
271 (PART 1), 272–276.
74. Kusić, D.; Kek, T.; Slabe, J.M.; Svečko, R.; Grum, J. The
impact of process parameters on test specimen deviations
and their correlation with AE signals captured during the
injection moulding cycle. Polymer Testing 2013, 32 (3),
583–593.
75. Tseng, W.J. Statistical analysis of process parameters influen-
cing dimensional control in ceramic injection molding. Journal
of Materials Processing Technology 1998, 79 (1–3), 242–250.
76. Chen, R.; Ho, C.; Fan, H. Shrinkage properties of ceramic
injection moulding part with a step-contracted cross-section
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
in the filling direction. Ceramics International 2004, 30 (6),
991–996.
77. Pomerleau, J.; Sanschagrin, B. Injection molding shrinkage
of PP: experimental progress. Polymer Engineering and
Science 2006, 46 (9), 1275–1283.
78. Chih, C.C.; Pao, L.S.; Yan, C.L. Analysis and modeling of
effective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation of
injection molded part with thin shell feature using response
surface methodology. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 2009, 45, 1087–1095.
79. Sepe, M. Dimensional stability after molding: Part 1.
Plastics Technology 2013, 59 (1), 13–14.
80. Fernandes, C.; Pontes, A.J.; Viana, J.C.; Gaspar-Cunha, A.
Using multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in the
optimization of operating conditions of polymer injection
molding. Polymer Engineering and Science 2010, 50 (8),
1667–1678.
81. Pontes, A.J.; Pouzada, A.S. Predicting shrinkage in
semi-crystalline injection mouldings – The influence of
pressure. Materials Science Forum 2006, 514–516 (PART 2),
1501–1505.
82. Bryce, D.M. Injection Moulding Stages. http://www.plastic
troubleshooter.com/ThePlasticTroubleshooter/molding_
process.htm (accessed June 2013).
83. Mulyana, R.; Daniel, T.; Min, Y.; Castro, J.M.; Lee, L.J.
The use of water containing TPO=activated carbon in injec-
tion molding. In Annual Technical Conference – ANTEC,
Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, Orlando, FL, USA, May
16–20 2010; p. 1339.
84. Zhang, Z.; Jiang, B. Optimal process design of shrinkage
and sink marks in injection molding. Journal Wuhan
University of Technology, Materials Science Edition 2007,
22 (3), 404–407.
85. Dangayach, G.S.; Kumar, D. Reduction in defect rate by
Taguchi method in plastic injection molded components.
Advanced Materials Research 2012, 488–489, 269–273.
86. Huang, M.; Hsu, H. Influence of injection moulding and
sintering parameters on properties of 316L MIM compact.
Powder Metallurgy 2011, 54 (3), 299–307.
87. Ozek, C.; Celik, Y.H. Calculating molding parameters in
plastic injection molds with ANN and developing software.
Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2012, 27, 160–168.
88. Guan, W.; Huang, H. Effect of backward melt flow on
injection-compression molded part thickness distribution. In
Annual Technical Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceed-
ings, Vol. 2, Boston, MA, USA, May 4–8 2011; pp. 1523.
89. Yoshihara, N. Molding shrinkage and warpage for
reinforced poly(ethylene terephthalate). Journal of Polymer
Engineering 2008, 28 (6–7), 449–465.
90. Rudolph, N.; Kühnert, I.; Ehrenstein, G.W. Compression
induced solidification (CIS) – A novel injection molding
strategy for high precision parts. In Annual Technical
Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 4,
Chicago, IL, USA, June 22–24 2009; pp. 2087.
91. Zhang, H.; Li, M.; Yang, L. Optimization of packing press-
ure curve in injection molding based on numerical simula-
tion. Advanced Materials Research 2011, 221, 522–527.
92. Subramanian, N.R.; Tingyu, L.; Seng, Y.A. Optimizing
warpage analysis for an optical housing. Mechatronics
2005, 15 (1), 111–127.
REVIEW OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT SHRINKAGE OF MOLDED PART
93. Huang, H.; Yang, C.; Li, K. Effects of process parameters
on shrinkage uniformity and birefringence of injection-
compression molded parts. In ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings, Vol. 15,
Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, November 13–19 2009; pp. 193.
94. Chang, Y.; Huang, S.T.; Huang, S.; Chen, S.; Huang, C.; Chen,
M.C.; Yang, V. Warpage management using three dimensional
thickness control method in injection molding. In Annual
Technical Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings,
Vol. 4, Chicago, IL, USA, June 22–24 2009; pp. 2429.
95. Hussin, R.; Mohd Saad, R.; Hussin, R.; Mohd Dawi, M. An
optimization of plastic injection molding parameters
using Taguchi optimization method. Asian Transaction of
Engineering – ATE ISSN: 2221–4267 2012, 2 (5), 75–80.
96. Huang, H.; Li, K.; Li, S. Effects of processing parameters on
shrinkage uniformity of injection-compression molded part.
In Technical Papers, Regional Technical Conference – Society
of Plastics Engineers, Vol. 1, Milwaukee, WI, USA, May 4–8
2008; pp. 400.
97. Huang, H.; Li, K.; Li, S. Injection-compression molded part
shrinkage uniformity comparison between semicrystalline
and amorphous plastics. Polymer – Plastics Technology
and Engineering 2009, 48 (1), 64–68.
98. Chen, C.; Su, P.; Lin, Y. Analysis and modeling of effective
parameters for dimension shrinkage variation of injection
molded part with thin shell feature using response surface
methodology. International Journal of Advanced Manufac-
turing Technology 2009, 45 (11–12), 1087–1095.
99. Rajalingam, S.; Bono, A.; Sulaiman, J. Determining Optimal
Moulding Process Parameters by Two Level Factorial
Design with Center Point. http://www.sljol.info/index.
php/SLJAStats/article/view/4968 (accessed April 24, 2013).
100. Prashantha, K.; Soulestin, J.; Lacrampe, M.F.; Lafranche,
E.; Krawczak, P.; Dupin, G.; Claes, M. Taguchi analysis
of shrinkage and warpage of injection-moulded polypropyle-
ne=multiwall carbon nanotubes nanocomposites. eXpress
Polymer Letters 2009, 3 (10), 630–638.
101. Liang, J.; Qi, W.; Li, Y.; Liu, C. Microcellular injection
molding process for car instrument panel. Gaofenzi Cailiao
Kexue Yu Gongcheng=Polymeric Materials Science and
Engineering 2008, 24 (3), 113–117.
102. Hwang, S.; Hsu, P.P.; Chiang, C. Shrinkage study of textile
roller molded by the microcellular injection process. In Annual
Technical Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings, Vol.
2, Cincinnati, OH, USA, May 6–11 2007; p. 737.
103. Liu, Y.; Song, M.C.; Wang, M.J.; Zhang, C.Z. Quality
defects and analysis of the microfluidic chip injection
molding. Materials Science Forum 2009, 628–629, 417–422.
104. Xie, L.; Shen, L.; Jiang, B. Modelling and Simulation for
Micro-Injection Molding Process. http://cdn.intechopen.com/
pdfs/16394/InTech-Modelling_and_simulation_for_micro_
injection_molding_process.pdf (accessed July 2013).
105. Thakur, V.; Angstadt, D.C. Influence of temperature on
micro-feature replication at ambient pressure in
micro-molding. In Annual Technical Conference – ANTEC,
Conference Proceedings, Vol. 5, Cincinnati, OH, USA,
May 6–11 2007; p. 2936.
106. Ong, N.S.; Zhang, H.; Woo, W.H. Plastic injection molding
of high-aspect ratio micro-rods. Materials and Manufactur-
ing Processes 2006, 21 (8), 824–831.
681
107. Huang, C.K.; Chiu, S.W. Formability and accuracy of
micropolymer compound with added nanomaterials in
microinjection molding. Journal of Applied Polymer Science
2005, 98 (5), 1865–1874.
108. Lee, J.L.; Ho, C.H.; Lin, Y.; Shen, Y.K. Fabrication and
detection for the skeletons of micro aerial vehicle using
precision injection molding. Key Engineering Materials
2010, 443, 75–80.
109. Wang, J.; Yang, W. Numerical simulation of shrinkage in
the microinjection molding of multi-microparts produced
in one mold. Advanced Materials Research 2011, 221,
649–656.
110. Wen, J.; Wen, P. Simulation and optimization of aspheric
plastic lens injection molding. Journal Wuhan University
of Technology, Materials Science Edition 2005, 20 (2),
86–89.
111. Shen, Y.K.; Wu, W.Y. An analysis of the three-dimensional
micro injection moulding. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer
2002, 29 (3), 423–431.
112. Shaa, B.; Dimova, S.; Griffithsa, C.; Packianather, M.S.
Investigation of micro-injection moulding: Factors affecting
the replication quality. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 2007, 12, 284–296.
113. Chen, C.; Chen, S.; Liao, W.; Chien, R.; Lin, S. Micro injection
molding of a micro-fluidic platform. International Communica-
tions in Heat and Mass Transfer 2010, 37 (9), 1290–1294.
114. Berger, G.R.; Gruber, D.P.; Friesenbichler, W.; Teichert, C.;
Burgsteiner, M. Replication of stochastic and geometric
micro structures – Aspects of visual appearance. Inter-
national Polymer Processing 2011, 26 (3), 313–322.
115. Fu, G.; Loh, N.H.; Tor, S.B.; Murakoshi, Y.; Maeda, R.
Replication of metal microstructures by micro powder
injection molding. Materials & Design 2004, 25 (8), 729–733.
116. Chien, R.-D. Micromolding of biochip devices designed with
microchannels. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2006, 128
(2), 238–247.
117. Angelov, A.K.; Coulter, J.P. The development and charac-
terization of polymer microinjection molded gratings. Poly-
mer Engineering and Science 2008, 48 (11), 2169–2177.
118. Chen, C.; Lin Su, P.; Chiou, C.; Chiang, K. Experimental
investigation of designed parameters on dimension
shrinkage of injection molded thin-wall part by integrated
response surface methodology and genetic algorithm: a
case study. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2011,
26, 534–540.
119. Beck, M.; Piotter, V.; Ruprecht, R.; Haußelt, J. Dimensional
tolerances of micro precision parts made by ceramic injection
moulding. In Menz, W., Dimov, S., Fillon, B., Eds.; 4M 2006 –
Second International Conference on Multi-Material Micro
Manufacture; Elsevier: Oxford, 2006; 135–138.
120. Thakur, V.; Mosaddegh, P.; Angstadt, D.C. Micro-feature
replication via polymer molding at ambient pressure. In Pro-
ceedings of the ASME International Manufacturing Science
and Engineering Conference 2007, MSEC2007, Atlanta,
GA, USA, October 15–18 2007; p. 171.
121. Tay, B.Y.; Liu, L.; Loh, N.H.; Tor, S.B.; Murakoshi, Y.;
Maeda, R. Injection molding of 3D microstructures by
mpIM. Microsystem Technologies 2005, 11 (2–3), 210–213.
122. Sotomayor, M.E.; Várez, A.; Levenfeld, B. Influence of pow-
der particle size distribution on rheological properties of
682
316L powder injection moulding feedstocks. Powder
Technology 2010, 200 (1–2), 30–36.
123. Shaw, H.M.; Edirisinghe, M.J. Shrinkage and particle
packing during removal of organic vehicle from ceramic
injection mouldings. Journal of the European Ceramic
Society 1995, 15, 109–116.
124. Nian, S.C.; Yang, S.Y. Molding of thin sheets using impact
micro-injection molding. International Polymer Processing
2005, 20 (4), 441–448.
125. Surace, R.; Trotta, G.; Bellantone, V.; Fassi, I. The Micro
Injection Moulding Process for Polymeric Components
Manufacturing. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34671/InTech-
The_micro_injection_moulding_process_for_polymeric_
components_manufacturing.pdf (accessed February 8, 2013).
126. Zhao, J.; Mayes, R.H.; Chen, G.; Xie, H.; Chan, P.S. Effects
of process parameters on the micro molding process.
Polymer Engineering and Science 2003, 43 (9), 1542–1554.
127. Plastic Engineering Company. PLENCO Processing Guide.
http://www.plenco.com/plenco_processing_guide/Sect%204
%20Injection%20Molding.pdf (accessed June 2013).
128. Lee, B.; Hwang, C.J.; Kim, D.S.; Kwon, T.H. Replication
quality of flow-through microfilters in microfluidic lab-on-
a-chip for blood typing by microinjection molding. Journal
of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of
the ASME 2008, 130 (2), 1–8.
129. Amaranan, S.; Manonukul, A. Aspect ratio of green MIM parts
on shrinkage during sintering. In The Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society – 3rd International Conference on Processing
Materials for Properties 2008, PMP III, Vol. 2, Bangkok,
Thailand, December 7–10 2009; pp. 880.
130. Kabanemi, K.K.; Vaillancourt, H.; Wang, H.; Salloum, G.
Residual stresses, shrinkage, and warpage of complex
injection molded products: Numerical simulation and
experimental validation. Polymer Engineering & Science
1998, 38 (1), 21–37.
D. ANNICCHIARICO AND J. R. ALCOCK
131. Song, M.; Jing, X.; Zhao, D. Experimental research on
injection molding shrinkage characteristics of plastic parts.
Zhongguo Jixie Gongcheng=China Mechanical Engineering
2006, 17 (SUPPL.), 180–182.
132. Othman, M.H.; Hassan, S.; Ibrahim, S.Z.; Li, L. The effects
of mould design on shrinkage and warpage of polypropylene
integral hinges. In 3rd International Conference on Trends in
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (ICTMIE 2013),
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), January 8–9, 2013.
133. Chen, S.; Chang, Y.; Hsu, P.; Huang, S.;, Chang, Y.;
Huang, C. Simulation on the part warpage and photoelastic
stress when molding discontinuous-thickness-variation parts
combined with differential mold cooling. In Annual
Technical Conference – ANTEC, Conference Proceedings,
Vol. 2, Boston, MA, USA, December 7–10 2011; pp. 1740.
134. Park, H.; Dang, X. Optimization of conformal cooling
channels with array of baffles for plastic injection mold.
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufac-
turing 2010, 11 (6), 879–890.
135. Harris, R.A.; Newlyn, H.A.; Hague, R.J.M.; Dickens, P.M.
Part shrinkage anomilies from stereolithography injection
mould tooling. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 2003, 43 (9), 879–887.
136. Vasco, J.C.; Selada, A.; Neves, T.; Pouzada, A.S. A Study
on the Mouldability of POM Micro Details in Moulding
Blocks Using Micro Manufacturing Technologies,
2010. http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/
20365/1/Vasco%20JC%202010.pdf (accessed June 2013).
137. Erzurumlu, T.; Ozcelik, B. Minimization of warpage and
sink index in injection-molded thermoplastic parts using
Taguchi optimization method. Materials and Design 2006,
27 (10), 853–861.
138. Anonymous, Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
– Fluctuations and Nanoscale Control. http://www.nist.
gov/cnst/nrg/nano_control.cfm (accessed August 2013).