Molding Workshop

Molding Workshop

Short Training Courses by:
Short Training Courses by:
Van T. Walworth, TechnoBiz

National Rubber Conference
N ti l R bb C f
5‐6 August 2016, Mumbai, India

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 1
 Molding Workshop
Molding Workshop
1. Clamping Pressure in Rubber Molding Presses
and the Cantilever Effect

2. Finding the Pulse of a Rubber Molding Process

3. Troubleshooting Air Trap Defects In Rubber 
M ldi C
Molding Compression –
i T
Transfer ‐
f I j i
Injection 

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 2
 TechnoBiz

Rubber Industry Resource Center

Rubber Industry Resource Center

technobiz‐group.com

(c) 2016 VTW/TLC 3
 Clamping Pressure
Clamping Pressure
in Rubber Molding Presses
and the 
Cantilever Effect
Cantilever Effect
A Short Training Course by:
A Short Training Course by:
Van T. Walworth, TechnoBiz

National Rubber Conference
N ti l R bb C f
5‐6 August 2016, Mumbai, India

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 4
What is Cantilever?

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 5
 Cantilever is a rigid
structural element such as a
beam or a plate, anchored at
only one end to a support
from which it is protruding

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 6
 When subjected to a
structural load, the
cantilever carries the load to
the support where it
imposes moment and shear
stress forces

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 7
Typical Demonstration of Cantilever

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 8
Cantilever Cranes

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 9
Cantilever Bridges

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 10
 All‐metal Monoplane Of 1915
The First Aircraft To Fly With Cantilever Wings

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 11
Cantilever Buildings

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 12
Cantilever Viewing Platforms

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 13
Would You Like to Cantilever Rock Wall Camp?

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 14
How About Jumping On Cantilever Rocks?

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 15
Would You Like A Cantilevered Clift Home?

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 16
 Cantilevered Clift Home!
NOT FOR ME!
NOT FOR ME!
Oh No!

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 17
 Cantilever
Can Be Good Or Bad For
Rubber Molding
g
Depends on how applied

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 18
 Cantilever
i Clamping
in Cl i Ram
R
Press Design

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 19
Cantilever Forces Misapplied ‐ Example

A mold with 
extended 
cantilever outside 
til t id
of the press is 
understood to 
likely have 
significant 
clamping issues
clamping issues 
due to uneven 
distribution of 
projected clamp 
area 

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 20
Cantilever Forces Misapplied ‐ Example

There is little 
surprise a mold
surprise a mold 
and press 
configuration as 
g
shown would have 
little or no 
effective clamping 
ff l
at extremities

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 21
Cantilever Forces Misapplied ‐ Example

Therefore, thermal 
expansion alone of
expansion alone of 
the rubber in a 
cavity at the mold 
y
extremes would be 
more than enough 
to blow open the 
bl h
parting lines

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 22
 Maximum Clamping Force Is Concentrated Directly Over the 
Clamping Ram With The Area Of The Ram Projected Axially
Clamping Ram With The Area Of The Ram Projected Axially

Axial Projection 
of Ram Area

Plan View Of Mold 
Area With Axially 
Projected Ram Area 
Over Layy

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 23
Generally speaking a good
rule for mold design is to
have a ram area equal to or
greater than the rubber area
of the cavity

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 24
 A good target if possible is to
achieve about 1,000 psig
clamping pressure on the rubber
area or about 70
70-Bar
Bar
(Some molds, materials, and/or presses require more
clamping pressure while some require less)

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 25
It might be considered that the ideal
ratio of clamping ram diameter to
mold size was a ratio of 1:1

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 26
 In other words
words, the ratio of
clamping
p g ram area compared
p
to rubber cavity area would
be at least 1:1

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 27
If possible it is best to keep all
cavities inside the projected
axial
i l area off the
th ram
~ however ~
Many
y of our p
presses are not
designed with this concept
(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 28
 Because of the cantilever
effect
e ect we
eaare
e not
ot forced
o ced to
place all cavities in the axially
projected ram area of the press

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 29
 Maximum Clamping Force Is Concentrated Directly Over the 
Clamping Ram With The Area Of The Ram Projected Axially
Clamping Ram With The Area Of The Ram Projected Axially

Axial Projection 
of Ram Area

Plan View Of Mold 
Area With Axially 
Projected Ram Area 
Over Layy

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 30
 For all kinds of reasons most
presses are designed and built with
a clamping ram diameter to mold
size ratio less than 1:1

1:1 1:2 1:3

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 31
 When the ratio of clamping
ram area compared to rubber
cavity area increases to 1.5:1
or better
b tt then
th potentially
t ti ll less
l
clamping pressure is required

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 32
Conversely, when the ratio of
clamping ram area compared
to rubber cavity area
decreases to 0.75:1 or worse
then potentially more
clamping pressure is required

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 33
In many cases there is not
enough clamping force
available for good molding
because this ratio is shifted
completely out of balance

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 34
 Press manufacturers may
increase hydraulic pressure
capacity to increase potential
clamping force through smaller
clamping rams

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 35
The issue is NOT LIMITED to how
much
h clamping
l i force
f is
i available
il bl in
i
the hydraulic system
~ but also includes ~
Is there uniform clamping pressure
distribution across the mold?

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 36
 The effect of cantilever
provides clamping
p p g force
support beyond an axial
projection of the clamping ram

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 37
 Therefore, because of the
cantilever effect we can extend
our cavity clamping area
beyond the axially projected
clamping area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 38
Example-1

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 39
 Example‐1
Assume an increased cantilever 
projected clamping area has a radius 
j d l i h di
equal to 2x ram radius, then a given
equal to 2x ram radius, then a given 
clamping force would be spread over an 
area 4x the area of the ram area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 40
 Example‐1
Therefore, if an increased cantilever projected 
clamping area has a radius equal to 2x ram radius, 
l i h di l 2 di
then a given clamping force would be spread over an 
area 4x the area of the ram area
Mold 
M ld
Area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 41
 Example‐1
p
Therefore, hydraulic clamping pressure would need 
to be increased 4x to have the same kg/cm (psig) 
across the increased cantilever projected area as the 
original clamping ram area
Mold 
M ld
Area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 42
Example-2

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 43
 Example‐2
Not only do mold designers place cavities in 
the fullest extents of the cantilever projected 
h f ll f h il j d
ram area, but they also place cavities beyond
ram area, but they also place cavities beyond 
the projected area into corners 

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 44
 Example‐2
Therefore, assuming an increased cantilever projected clamping 
area has a radius equal to 2x ram radius and there are also
area has a radius equal to 2x ram radius, and there are also 
cavities in the four corners, then a given clamping force would be 
spread over an area 5x the area of the ram area
d 5 th f th

Corner
Corner 
Clamp  
Area 
(4plc)

Mold  Cantilever Projected Square Area = (4)2 = 16
Area Clamping Square area is over 5x Ram Area

12
1:2

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 45
 Example‐2
p
Therefore, hydraulic clamping pressure would need to 
be increased 5x to have the same kg/cm (psig) across 
the increased cantilever projected area as the original 
p j g
clamping ram area
Corner
Corner 
Clamp  
Area 
(4plc)

Mold  Cantilever Projected Square Area = (4)2 = 16
Area Clamping Square area is over 5x Ram Area

12
1:2

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 46
The two previous examples may not
be a problem for clamping force as
long as there is enough excess
clamping force in the press to
accommodate 4-5 times the
minimum ram area requirement

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 47
 300

Th
The
cantilever effect
is g
generally
y at
an optimum
included
o
angle of 30

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 48
 450
Th
The
cantilever effect
is g
generally
y at a
maximum
benefit included
o
angle of 45

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 49
 600

The
cantilever
til effect
ff t
is rarely
beneficial at an
included
angle of 60o

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 50
 60o Cantilever Pressure Distribution Example
p

Thick 60o
Bolster
With
Transition Cavity parting
Wedge
line is well
line is well 
inside 60o
angle which 
should give 
h ld i
good support 
even at corner 
High 
Hi h
Ratio  cavities
Diameter 
Ram

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 51
 60o Cantilever Pressure Distribution Example
p
60o
Very 
Thick
Bolster Cavity parting
line is well 
i id 60o
inside 60
angle because 
of use of a 
thick bolster 
High 
which should 
Ratio
Ratio  give good
give good 
Diameter  support at 
Ram
corner cavities

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 52
 40o Cantilever Pressure Distribution

40o
Medium 
Thick Cavity parting
Bolster
line is well 
inside a 40o
angle which 
should not
should not 
compromise 
Medium corner cavities
Ratio
Ratio 
Diameter 
Ram

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 53
 40o Cantilever Pressure Distribution Example
p

40o
Thin
Bolster
Cavity parting
line is barely 
inside a 40o
angle which 
g
may still 
compromise 
Medium
d corner cavities
corner cavities
Ratio 
Diameter 
Ram

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 54
 30o Cantilever Pressure Distribution Example

30o Cavity parting
line is barely 
y
Medium inside a 30o
Thick
Bolster angle even 
with of use of
with of use of 
a thick spacer 
block which 
may still 
Small  compromise 
Diameter corner cavities 
R ti
Ratio 
Sliding  due to sliding 
Pressure  pressure 
Column column
(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 55
 30o Cantilever Pressure Distribution Example
Cavity 
30o parting
Thin line is just 
Bolster outside 30o
angle of
angle of 
sliding 
compression 
column 
Small  which will 
Diameter
R ti
Ratio 
compromise
compromise 
Sliding  corner 
Pressure  cavities
Column

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 56
 Cantilever Pressure Distribution Example
With I‐Beam Spacers
With I‐Beam Spacers
20o 20o

Cavity parting
line is well 
outside 20o
Narrow 30o angle support 
I‐Beam
Support compromised
compromised 
because of 
thin I‐Beam 
spacer blocks
spacer blocks

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 57
Projected Cantilever Effect
j
Plan / Profile View
Using I‐Beam
Using I Beam Spacers
Spacers
20o 20o

30o

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 58
 40o Cantilever Pressure Distribution
Using four pillar block spacers No pillar block spacers
ll bl k
40o 40o 40o

Cavity parting line is outside 40o angle and compromised because 
of use of use of four small diameter pillars used as spacers blocks

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 59
 Projected Cantilever Effect
j
Plan Views
Using four pillar block spacers No pillar block spacers

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 60
 Cantilever Pressure Distribution
Case Study
40o 40o
Shims are being used trying 
Shims are being used trying
to even pressure distribution

Cavity parting line is outside 40o angle and compromised because of use of 
use of four small diameter pillars used as spacers blocks resulting in the use 
of shims trying to even out pressure distribution
of shims trying to even out pressure distribution

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 61
 Cantilever Pressure Distribution
Using four pillar block spacers Replace pillar block spacers with 
40o 40o solid support spacer wedge block

60o

Replacing Small Clusters of Pillars with a solid 
spacer wedge block improves clamping force 
d
distribution and optimizes cantilever effect
b d l ff
(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 62
The cantilever effect is not as
much concerned with whether
clamping force is transferred
from the ram to the mold
~ But rather ~
How the clamping force is
distributed across the mold

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 63
“ It is
i better
b tt to
t have
h barely
b l enough
h
clamping
p g pressure
p evenly
y
distributed…
Than to have excessive clamping
press re unevenly
pressure ne enl distrib
distributed”
ted”

Van Walworth
(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 64
Checking Force
Di t ib ti
Distribution
Across Mold

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 65
 Fujifilm Is Useful to Determine 
Pressure Distribution Across Mold, 
i ib i ld
Clamping Surfaces, and Platens

Fujifilm can be placed between: 
can be placed between:
¾ Bolster & platen
¾ Platen & mold
¾ Mold plates at parting lines
Mold plates at parting lines

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 66
 Pressure Equilibrium and/or 
Cantilever Effect is not Obvious
Cantilever Effect is not Obvious

Fujifilm
Example

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 67
 Pressure Equilibrium and/or 
Cantilever Effect is not Obvious
Cantilever Effect is not Obvious

Fujifilm
Example

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 68
 4‐Cavity Pressure Equilibrium
3D Finite Element Analysis Model
3D Finite Element Analysis Model

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 69
 Pressure Distribution Test Using Lead Flakes

Measure
Lead Flake
Thickness
With Snap
Gauge

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 70
 Pressure Distribution Test Using Paper

Paper impressions are not particularly 
conducive to measure indentations ‐ rather 
the comparative indentations are useful to
the comparative indentations are useful to 
determine cavity to cavity variations 

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 71
 Cantilever
in Transfer
Rubber Molding

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 72
Traditional thinking and
teaching
g suggest
gg that all
cavities must be located
under the transfer pad

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 73
 Traditional thinking and
teaching
g is that clamping
p g
pressure on pad will clamp
everything under the pad

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 74
 The reason this essentially
works is because the clamping
ram does not recognize how
thick a rubber product is

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 75
As a result part thickness
variations do not require
additional clamping force
and
d neither
ith dod multiple
lti l
decks in the same press

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 76
 Multi‐Deck
Stack Presses
Stack Presses

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 77
 Essentially a transfer pad
and a cavity
ypparting
g line are
two decks in the same mold
in the same press

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 78
 Traditional Transfer Molding Basics
Traditional Transfer Molding Basics

Deck‐1

Deck‐2

Load Part Close Press Open Press

Load Preform Transfer Rubber Unload Part
Vulcanize Rubber Remove Pad

(c) 2016 VTW/TLC 79
 In many transfer molding
applications
pp it is quite
q
advisable to cover all cavities
under the transfer pad

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 80
Transfer Pad Which Should Cover All Cavities

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 81
When the entire transfer pad
area is required to cover the
cavities at the parting line
deck the area of the cavities
is essentially invisible to the
clamp force

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 82
Therefore the clamping force
applied across a transfer pad
effectively
ff ti l extends
t d the
th same
clamping force to the cavities
below the p
pad by
y cantilever

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 83
A potentially misappropriated
application of cantilever
occurs with
ith relatively
l ti l large
l
transfer pads having
y few sprue
relatively p drops
p

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 84
Large Transfer Pad Area
With Few Sprues

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 85
 Traditional
Traditional 
Large Transfer 
Pad Area

With Few Sprues

Cavity Layout

Total Clamping 
Area Is Same As 
The Transfer Pad 
Area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 86
A relatively large transfer pad
has a corresponding
relatively
l ti l large
l area in
i which
hi h
the available clamping force
is distributed

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 87
Assuming the clamping force
i dispersed
is di d uniformly
if l
across the mold
mold, the
available clamping
p g force is
potentially diluted compared
to an alternative transfer pot

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 88
Since the clamping force
cannott differentiate
diff ti t which
hi h
portions of rubber are
located on which decks an
alternative clamping force
area option is possible

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 89
 Traditional
Traditional 
Large Transfer 
Pad Area

Alternative Total 
Clamping Area
Clamping Area 
Is new 
combined 
Transfer Pad 
And Cavity Area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 90
 Even Further 
Reduction In 
Total Clamping 
Area Can Be 
A C B
Achieved Using 
Individual 
Individual
Transfer Pots
Total Clamping 
T t l Cl i
Area Is The 
Combined 
Combined
Transfer Pads 
And Cavity Area

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 91
Benefits of individual transfer pots
i l d less
include l engineered
i d pad
d waste
t
~ and ~
Improved
p focus and distribution of
available clamping force

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 92
Cantilever forces imposed by
th clamping
the l i off the
th press
focus the available clamping
force across the total rubber
area regardless of which
deck the rubber is located

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 93
 It is important to note that
transfer pots and plungers
should be designed so that the
face of the plunger does not
contact the bottom of the pot

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 94
A gap between the face of the
plunger
l and
d the
th bottom
b tt off
the pot should be between
0.50mm – 1.0mm for the
cantilever effect to be at
optimum advantage

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 95
 Transfer Mold Design Considerations

Typical clearance between a transfer plunger

and
d pott should
h ld be
b between
b t 0 50
0.50mm – 1.0mm
10

A common typical
y target
g clearance design
g for each side
between the plunger and pot is between 0.002”-0.003”
(0 050mm-0
(0.050mm 0.076mm)
076mm) or in other words a total clearance
of between 0.004”-0.006” (0.102mm-0.152mm).
Application and technical 
Sealing between pot and plunger details of these topics must 
be reserved for a future 
to p
prevent leakage
g is advisable session

(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 96
(c) 2015 VTW/TLC 97