What are you actually

getting in a “Pressure
Loss Study”?
There have been two purposes for performing the pressure loss study on the
shop floor. The first is to quantify the pressure required for the melt to flow
through the molding machines nozzle and each of the progressive sections of
an injection mold.  The progressive sections in a mold can include the sprue,
the multiple sections of a runner, gate and part-forming cavity.  By knowing
the pressure drop through these progressive locations, the molder can make
judgments as where to modify the molds channel sizes if injection pressures
are too high.  If, for example, mold filling pressures exceed the machines
pressure limit, and the method determines that 5% of the pressure is in the
nozzle, 10% in the sprue, 35% in the runner, 15% in the gate and 35% in the
part forming cavity then it would be most effective to reduce pressures by
increasing the diameter of the runner. The second purpose of the pressure
loss study has been to evaluate the accuracy of injection molding simulation.
When surveying processors, I found that most conducted this study on nearly
every mold, whetherthey needed it or not – meaning that they were not at, or
near, any pressure limited situation. It had simply become a standard practice
despite the fact the data was never going to be used.
The methodology for a pressure loss study for an 8 cavity cold runner mold is
summarized as follows:
1.Determine the target injection rate which you plan on using for
production. Use this fill rate for each of the following steps.
2. Collect Pressure data as follows:
 Determine the shot volume required to fill the cavity to 95% full. Record the
pressure required to inject this volume through the machines nozzle. For reference
we will call this P1.
 Fill the mold to approximately 95% full and record the machines peak pressure.
(P2)
 Reduce the machines shot size and fill to a position just past (post-gate) the gate
(just inside the cavity). (P3)
 Reduce the machines shot size and fill to a position just prior (pre-gate) to
entering the gate (P4)
 Reduce the machines shot size and fill to a position at the exit of the molds
sprue. (P5)
3. Pressure to fill each of the progressive section of the mold (sprue,
runner, gate and cavity ) are then calculated as follows:
 Sprue = P5 – P1 (this actually includes the pressure to move the screw forward)
 Runner = P4 – P5
 Gate = P3 – P4
 Cavity = P2 – P3
Note:  the pressure loss study can also be expanded to determine the
pressure through each of the progressive branches of the runner
(primary, secondary and tertiary).
In the study conducted by Bowersox et al, the conventionally practiced
pressure loss study method was contrasted to direct measurements from
pressure transducers placed along progressive locations in an 8-cavity mold. 
The direct measurements isolated pressure in the cavity, the gate and the
runner (the runner included both the runner and sprue).  Peak pressures at
each of the pressure sensors were recorded when the best filling cavity in the
mold was 95% full.  The study was conducted with both a PP homopolymer
and a PC/ABS material.  The study also included the results of mold filling
simulation.
Figure 1 is the parting line view of the 8-cavity test mold with the location of
the two in-mold pressure sensors indicated in red
 Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the progressive short shots taken when collecting pressure
data for the conventional pressure loss method.  (Top to Bottom:  95% full,
post-gate, pre-gate)

Figure 2-1
 Figure 2-2

Figure 2-3

Figure 3

Figure 3 is a mold filling analysis of the project mold generated by Autodesk®
Moldflow® software. Pressure readings at the inlet of the sprue, pre-gate and
post-gate are shown. Note the simulation shows only one of the eight cavities
as occurrences were used to represent the additional cavities.  (Note: this use
of occurrences ignores shear induced melt imbalances which are also ignored
during most shop floor pressure loss studies.)
Figure 4 contrasts the pressure to fill the runner, gate and part-forming cavity
as determined by the conventional method (left- red graphs), the directly
measured pressure data (center-blue graphs) and injection molding simulation
(right- green graphs). The top three graphs are from the polypropylene and
the bottom three are from the PC/ABS trials. Note that when contrasted to the
directly measured pressure data, the conventionally method significantly
miscalculated the actual pressures and misrepresented the pressure
contribution of the three regions (runner, gate and cavity).  Also note that
though the injection molding simulation under predicts the filling pressure in
the runner, it closely mimics the data gathered via the directly measured
pressure data and thereby does a very good job of identifying the relative
pressure contribution of the three regions in the mold.

Figure 4

As indicated earlier, the injection molding simulation is actually doing a better

job of identifying the pressures and their distribution in a mold than the state-
of-the-art shop floor pressure loss study. This may seem very odd. It is also a
bit troubling as the error in the shop floor methods has often been used to
evaluate the accuracy of injection molding simulation.
The problem with the conventional method is that it does not account for the
dynamic growth of the frozen layer as the melt continues to flush through early
to fill regions of a mold. The actual contribution to the total filling pressure of
these early filling regions is more than the pressure required to initially fill
them. In this study the conventional method records the pressure required for
the melt to flow through just the sprue and runner.  What this misses is that as
the melt continues to flow to fill the cavity, the frozen layer in the runner and
sprue can continue to grow. Small changes in frozen layer thickness can have
a significant influence on pressure as it actually decreases the radius of the
runner channel. This influence can be seen by evaluating Poisseulle’s
equation (Eq. #1) which shows that pressure through a round channel is
directly proportional to the radius of the channel to the fourth power.

Equation 1

Figure 5
The conventional pressure loss study assumes that pressure loss through a
length of runner would be at its maximum once the melt reaches the end of
the runner. This situation is illustrated in Figure 5 where pressure vs. time is
illustrated for a length of runner that ends at the edge of a mold.   T0 is the
time when the melt enters the runner section and T1 when the melt exits the
runner and purges to atmosphere. Note that pressure stops rising at the end
of the runner as there is no more runner length.
 
 

Figure 6

However in actual molding, the influence of frozen layer growth can be seen
using the ThermafloTM MoldometerTM. Here material can be flushed through a
runner section to atmosphere as described above. Figure 6 is a pressure
curve generated by Thermaflo. T0 and T1 correspond to the time when the
melt reaches a first pressure sensor in a runner length (T0) and when it exits
the mold and begins purging to atmosphere (T1).  Between T0 and T1 we see
an expected pressure rise (Y axis) that was illustrated in Figure 5. However,
unlike Figure 5, the pressure continues to rise after T1 despite the fact that
there is no more flow length. This rise is the result of the continuing growth of
the frozen layer. The pressure continues to rise and then begins to level off as
the frozen layer becomes thick enough that a thermal balance between heat
gain from shear and heat loss to the mold is reached.
 

Figure 7

Figure 7 illustrates the dynamic conditions along the flow channel, between
T0 and T1. The frozen layer illustrated in the top figure would be the conditions
that exist as the melt initially enters the moldometer measurement channel on
the left side and has just reached the end on the right side. The middle and
bottom figure illustrate that the frozen layer would continue to grow through
this same length as material flushes through it. This creates the continued rise
in pressure seen after T1 in Figure 6.
 Figure 8 illustrate the same conditions that will occur in the early section of a
runner in a mold.  Here the melt progressively fills an illustrated runner length.
Note how the frozen layer thickness in the early section of the runner (T0 to T1)
continues to grow as the runner fills. Ultimately, the pressure to flow through
the early section of the runner (T0 to T1) is the pressure required to drive the
melt through this section at its most restrictive state – i.e. when the mold is
completely filled and the frozen layer is the thickest, i.e. when the runner
channel is the smallest.

Figure 8

The study by Bowersox et al acknowledges that this is a limited study. It only

includes two materials and one cold runner mold. However, reinforced by the
data provided by Thermaflo, the study certainly raises a red flag and
establishes that this heavily practiced method needs some work.
It is my opinion that:
 Data from today’s conventional pressure loss studies can be misleading. In
particular, this method will undervalue the actual pressure loss through early portions
of a runner system and overvalue the pressure loss through gates and part forming
cavities.
 Good value can be gained from this conventional method if you are interested in
knowing the pressure loss of the machine and nozzle, or the pressure to fill the mold
to 95% full. However, many molding machines will not allow you to take air shots
through the nozzle at the same high injection rates commonly used during normal
molding. If this is the case, the studies will be flawed.
 The pressure loss study method should not be used to evaluate injection
molding simulation except for when the mold is 95% full. Evaluating intermediate
pressures in the mold (runner & gate) cannot be accurately done. To contrast
simulation pressure predictions to actual fill pressures, one should subtract the
pressure loss through the machine nozzle from the pressure loss required to fill the
mold to 95%.  Again you need to consider whether the machine will allow you to take
air shots through the nozzle at the same high injection rates used during normal
molding.
 If you are commissioning a new mold and find that pressures are excessive –
you have limited options and I am not confident that a pressure loss study is going to
help you. If pressure is excessive:
o Logically, you would consider a lower pressure drop machine nozzle; a
larger diameter sprue (possibly a hot sprue) or increase strategic diameters of the
runner system. Most likely you are not going to thicken the walls of the part; you
should not open the gates as they should be designed for a purpose (and most
likely you will not gain much from this).
o You could consider a properly designed graduated runner to reduce
pressure through the runner, however be conscious of the negative aspects of
graduated runners (to be covered in future issues of this series).
o Based on this study, injection molding simulation provides a good quality
means to strategically adjust sizes of an undersized runner. Even if the simulation
incorrectly calculates the total pressure through the mold, the relative pressure loss
through the various regions should be more accurate than the data provided by the
conventional pressure loss study method.
If you chose to continue to perform the conventional pressure loss study
recognize that it could lead you to make changes to the wrong portions of the
runner and gates to correct pressure limit issues.
You should also ask yourself if you are doing the study out of curiosity or
because you are close to, or at, a pressure limited process?
 If out of curiosity, then you have to ask yourself “what are you going to do with
the data?” If nothing, then why do it other than to check off a box during validation and
make a nice graph? Time is money and you are wasting both.
 If you are doing it to try to get out of a pressure limited situation you have to ask
yourself what can you realistically change?
o Can you change the part? 99% of the time you can’t.
o Should you modify the gate design? Gates are usually not the largest
pressure source unless they are extremely long and restrictive (in this case you
have a poor design to start with and probably have numerous additional issues)
Changing gate size within reasonable limits usually isn’t going to decrease the
 pressure enough to get out of a pressure limited situation and into a wide
processing window.
o Therefore – realistically, the most logical means to reduce the fill pressure
is to modify the runner. In most cases someone doesn’t need a shop floor study to
tell them that. If simulation was performed, you should simply go back to simulation
and change the design to lower the pressure in the most effective manner possible.
Again, you don’t need more time spent on the shop floor to tell what should already
have been known.
Progress comes from change! Change begins with Questioning
Everything! If you feel you are on the right track, you might want to
consider where the track is taking you.