A Practical and Business Case For GIPT C

A PRACTICAL AND BUSINESS CASE FOR
GIPT CO-INJECTION MOULDING
by
THEODORE BOURAS - SOULIMAS
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Degree of

Master of Science in
Engineering Business Management
Warwick Manufacturing Group
The University of Warwick
CV4 7AL
August 2005
Project Submission Pro-Forma
(to be bound in front of the submitted Dissertation)
NAME: ……………………………………………………………………
Home Address. …………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………….
I wish the dissertation to be considered for (tick one only)
MSc in Engineering Business Management 

MSc in Electronic Business Management 
MSc in Information Technology for Manufacture 
MSc in Manufacturing Systems Engineering 
MSc in Quality & Reliability 
MSc in Supply Engineering & Logistics 
I have checked that my modules meet the requirements of the above award 
I confirm that I have included in my dissertation:
An abstract of the work completed 

A declaration of my contribution to the work 
A table of contents 
A list of figures 
A glossary of terms (where appropriate) 
A clear statement of my project objectives 
A full reference list and bibliography 
I am willing for my marked dissertation to be used for staff training purposes 
Signed: ……………………………………………. Date: ………………..
\\mulan\wmgadmin\wmg\projects\msc\pro-forma
ABSTRACT
GIPT is a co-injection moulding based in-mould decoration technology, suitable for

the production of low volume weatherable thermoplastic based components with
potential applications in the automotive industry. The technique features a core
thermoplastic material completely encapsulated by a thermoplastic based powder
coating, able to provide the properties and decorative effect of commonly used liquid
based paint coatings. Apart from the environmental advantages, GIPT’s financial
viability lies in the maximisation of a cheap core material incorporated under an
expensive thermoplastic paint coating. Additional requirements are uniform skin and
core layer distribution as well as maximum adhesion levels between materials.
GIPT mechanisms are complex and processing parameters along with mould
geometry affect the optimum balance between objectives. The effect of skin material
temperature on maximum core material ABS that can be incorporated under three
different skin materials in a complex mould geometry has been studied along with
skin and core layer distribution as well as achieved adhesion levels. The results have
been inconclusive respectfully to temperature’s effect because of the complex
interconnection with the rest of the processing parameters but provided an indication
on the possible restrictions posed by mould geometrical factors on the range of
material combinations than can be successfully utilised. Geometry has also been
identified to affect uniform layer distribution significantly. Adhesion has been
identified to be a weak function of the skin material layer thickness. Further
investigation is necessary to comprehend the complex nature of the technique’s
mechanism as it has been identified to be a draw back for its full commercial uptake.
GIPT produced samples were more expensive than single injection skin material
mouldings but it has been demonstrated that for different material combinations,
GIPT can be more cost efficient against single injection colour through mouldings
despite the greater machinery capital investment required. The mould’s geometry, co-
defining the maximum amounts of core material encapsulation and the prices of
selected materials appear to be the key aspects of the technique’s appropriateness over
rival technologies in terms of production costs.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the advice, valuable assistance and support of Dr.
V. Goodship of Warwick Manufacturing Group, International Automotive Research
Centre throughout this project. The author feels most grateful for her additional
remarks, assistance and support, sometimes beyond the scope of this project.
Special thanks to Mr. S. Talbot for his valuable knowledge, assistance and
suggestions during the co-injection moulding experiments as well as patience and
persistence when things did not seem to work out for no apparent reasons. Special
thanks also to Mr. K. Makenji for his “back up” assistance and availability to provide
any sort of suggestions or advice.
DECLARATION
The below signed author declares that all work in this dissertation is his own unless
otherwise acknowledged in the text and that none of this work has been submitted
before for any academic degree. All sources of quoted information have been
acknowledged by means of references.
THEODORE BOURAS-SOULIMAS
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
DECLARATION ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 2
1.2 GUIDE OF SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS 3
CHAPTER 2 INJECTION MOULDING 5
2.1 STANDARD INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS 5
2.2 INJECTION MOULDING MACHINE COMPONENTS 8
2.3 INJECTION MOULDING SYSTEMS 10
CHAPTER 3 CO-INJECTION MOULDING 12
3.1 MATERIALS AND PROCESS PRINCIPLES 13
3.1.1 RHEOLOGY IMPLICATIONS 14
3.1.2 TOOLING REQUIREMENTS 16
3.1.3 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 17
3.2 CO-INJECTION MOULDING TECHNIQUES 17
3.2.1 SIMULTANEOUS INJECTION-TWO CHANNEL TECHNIQUE 18
3.3 CO-INJECTION MOULDING APPLICATIONS 19
CHAPTER 4 GIPT 22
4.1 GIPT PROCESS DESCRIPTION 23
4.2 MATERIALS SELECTION AND CONSIDERATIONS 27
4.2.1 ADHESION 30
4.2.1.1 COMPATIBLE MATERIALS 30
4.2.1.2 CHEMICAL COMPATIBILISATION 32
4.2.1.3 INTERFACIAL INSTABILITIES 35
4.2.1.4 ENCAPSULATION 35
4.3 GIPT VARIANTS 36
4.3.1 IN-MOULD PRIMING OF POLYPROPYLENE 36
iii
4.3.2 IN-MOULD PRIMING OF COMPOSITES 37
CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVE IMD TECHNOLOGIES 39
5.1 THROUGH COLOUR MOULDINGS 39
5.2 IN-MOULD FILM DECORATION 40
CHAPTER 6 PERSPECTIVES OF GIPT IN INDUSTRY 42
6.1 PAINT SHOP ASSOCIATED COSTS 44
6.2 APPROPRIATE IMD TECHNIQUE SELECTION 48
CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 55
7.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 62
7.2 INJECTION MOULDING EXPERIMENTS DESIGN 64
7.2.1 EXPERIMENTATION RESTRICTIONS 65
7.2.2 PROCESS FUNCTIONS CONTROLLED 66
CHAPTER 8 EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS 68
8.1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 72
CHAPTER 9 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 75
9.1 THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE 77
9.2 SKIN AND CORE MATERIAL DISTRIBUTIONS 85
9.3 ADHESION 91
CHAPTER 10 COST ANALYSIS 99
10.1 METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS 99
10.1.1 COST CALCULATION EQUATIONS 100
10.1.2 COMBINED MATERIALS WEIGHT DETERMINATION 101
10.1.3 CYCLE TIME ESTIMATIONS 103
10.1.4 MATERIAL COSTS 104
10.1.5 MACHINE COST RATE 105
10.1.6 LABOUR HOURLY RATE 106
10.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS 106
10.3 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS DISCUSSION 108
10.3.1 THE EFFECT OF SKIN TO CORE RATIO 109
10.3.2 THE EFFECT OF CYCLE TIMES 111
10.3.3 THE EFFECT OF PRICES 115
CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS 120
CHAPTER 12 FURTHER RESEARCH 123
CHAPTER 13 REFERENCES 126
APPENDIX 1 EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 137
iv
APPENDIX 2 MATERIALS USED 140
APPENDIX 3 COST CALCULATIONS PROGRAM 143
APPENDIX 4 COST CALCULATIONS 148
APPENDIX 5 COST DIFFERENCE FUNCTION 150
APPENDIX 6 EXPERIMENTS WITH PET 152
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Schematic of fountain flow in mould filling 7
Figure 2 Injection moulding machine components 8
Figure 3 Reciprocating screw system 10
Figure 4 Core and skin materials flow during co-injection moulding 12
Figure 5 Sandwich structure: co-injection moulding cross-section 13
Figure 6 Co-injection moulded part with core breaking through the skin 13
Figure 7 Different viscosity melts’ interface behaviour and the “melt 15
fingering”
Figure 8 Gate positioning effect on core material distribution 16
Figure 9 Battenfeld two channel co-injection moulding technique 19
Figure 10 GIPT simultaneous co-injection moulding process 24
Figure 11 GIPT decorated wheel trim fixings 25
Figure 12 Wheel trim fixing which contains excess paint material 26
Figure 13 Reaction between the anhydride of PP-g-MA and amine group of PA 34
at the PP/PA interface
Figure 14 In-mould priming of a composite to provide surface smoothness 38
Figure 15 In-mould labelling process 40
Figure 16 In-mould labelling of an automotive interior trim 41
Figure 17 Effect of volume on piece cost 42
Figure 18 Comparative production costs for a typical plastic component 43
Figure 19 PSA Peugeot Citroën cost benefit analysis of in-mould technologies 51
Figure 20 Thermoplastic material IMD technique selection in automotive 52
industry
Figure 21 Suggested thermoplastic IMD selection process for the automotive 54
manufacturing industry
Figure 22 Core breaking through section in a PP long skin sample (skin 76
material melt temperature T=2200C - sample reference R-5.5)
Figure 23 Effect of temperature on viscosity of polypropylene 79
Figure 24 Viscosity versus shear rate for PMMA and PC 84
Figure 25 Melt fingering in a LDPE skin sample (reference sample R-1.9) 86
vi
Figure 26 Middle “dish” tool intersection (LDPE reference sample R-1.6) 87
Figure 27 Detached skin in LDPE “dish” sample 93
Figure 28 Detached skin in PP glass “dish” sample 93
Figure 29 “Blisters” in surface of a PP long skin moulding 96
Figure 30 “Blister” formation mechanism in PP long skin mouldings 97
Figure 31 Market price of plastic materials 2004 104
Figure 32 Part production costs comparison for experimental material systems 110
Figure 33 Part production costs comparison for experimental material systems 113
and equal cycle times
Figure 34 Contribution of parameters to part’s production cost for selected 114
reference samples
Figure 35 Effect of core and skin relative prices for measured and equal cycle 116
times
Figure 36 Combined effect of core and skin relative prices with skin to core 119
volumetric ratios and measured cycle times
Figure 37 Battenfeld GmbH BM-T1100/2  300 simultaneous co-injection 137
moulding machine
Figure 38 “Dish” tool, stationary half of the mould 137
Figure 39 “Dish” tool, moving half of the mould 138
Figure 40 “Dish” moulded sample 138
Figure 41 Maguire Low Pressure Dryer 139
Figure 42 A PET black core : ABS skin “dish” moulded sample 152
Figure 43 Materials distribution in a PET black – ABS “dish” moulded sample 153
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Applications for co-injection moulding 20
Table 2 Overview of application property requirements 27
Table 3 Material compatibility table 31
Table 4 Common moulding conditions for all experiments 70
Table 5 Experimental results for samples with ABS core (T=2350C) and 72
LDPE
Table 6 Experimental results for samples with ABS core (T=2350C) and PP 73
with 30% glass fibre
Table 7 Experimental results for samples with ABS core (T=2350C) and PP 74
with 30% long glass fibre
Table 8 Weight conversion factors 102
Table 9 Material costs 105
Table 10 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% long glass 107
fibre)
Table 11 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% glass fibre) 107
Table 12 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin LDPE) 107
Table 13 Part production cost for single material injection mouldings 108
Table 14 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% long glass 148
fibre) for equalised cycle times
Table 15 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% glass fibre) 148
for equalised cycle times
Table 16 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin LDPE) for equalised 149
cycle times
viii
ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

Gmix Interface Mix Reaction Gibbs Energy
COST Cost Difference Between Techniques
ASA Acrylic-Styrene-Acrylonitrile
CYCLE Production Rate
EPIC Engineering Polymers Integrated Capability
EVA Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Copolymer
GIPT Granular Injected Paint Technology
HDPE High Density polyethylene
ICI Imperial Chemical Industries
IMD In Mould Decoration
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
MCC Acquisition Cost of a Moulding Machine
MHY Machine Operational Time
MPS Machine Operator Cost of Labour
MTR Metering Value of a Material
PA6 Polyamide 6
PA66 Polyamide 66
PBT Polybutylene Terephthalate
PC Polycarbonate
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PMMA Polymethyl Methacrylate
POM Polyoxymethylene
PP Polypropylene
PP glass Polypropylene with 30% Glass Fibre
PP long Polypropylene with 30% Long Glass Fibre
PP-g-MA Maleic Anhydrate Grafted Polypropylene
PPO mod Modified Polyphenylene Oxide
PRICE Purchase Price of a Material
PRP Total Period of Production
PRW Plastics And Rubber Weekly
R Skin to Core Material Price Ratio
ix
T Temperature
UPVC Unplasticised Polyvinyl Chloride
UV Ultraviolet Light
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WCON Weight Conversion Factor of a Material
WGT Weight of a Material
WMG Warwick Manufacturing Group
x
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The current trend in manufacturing industries towards product personalisation entails
the production of more versions and fewer volumes. For the automotive industry, this
switch entails panel manufacturing strategy reassessment in order for the production
costs to be reduced since for lower volumes of each design, steel is not efficient from
the production costs point of view because of the high expense of tooling required.
The use of thermoplastic materials has been identified to reduce manufacturing costs
at low production volumes while at the same time body work weight savings are
achievable. The exploitation of in-mould decoration (IMD) technologies enables paint
shop operations override and provides with further financial advantages through
compliance with the new EU and other countries’ environmental regulations of key
importance to the automotive manufacturing industries.
GIPT is an emerging IMD technology based on the simultaneous co-injection
moulding technique with the ability to directly produce a thermoplastic material based
component that requires no further decorative finish. As a material specific version of
the co-injection moulding, the technique’s success to provide a “Class A” finish,
equal to that achievable by the use of traditional liquid based paints, depends on the
technological developments on powder coating technologies. Requirements feature a
thermoplastic paint material that is injection mouldable and that can provide an equal
or superior decorative effect respectfully to alternative IMD technologies. The
technique features advantages as well as disadvantages compared to alternative IMD
techniques such as the through colour mouldings or the in-mould films.
1
From the production costs point of view, GIPT’s financial advantages rely heavily
upon the ability to utilise recycled post-industrial thermoplastic materials buried in a
part’s core under an in-mould applied paint coating. If recycled materials are not
considered as an option, GIPT’s production costs competitiveness lies in the
achievable skin to core ratio and the prices of materials used. GIPT suitable paint
coatings are expensive specialty polymers. For some mould geometries and materials,
through colour mouldings with such materials may entail higher production costs
despite the easier processing and the lower machinery capital investment. Number and
increased complexity of surfaces to be decorated usually disable the option of the in-
mould films technique utilisation.
1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project was to examine some GIPT business aspects of key
importance with a practical approach as it is sometimes the case in industry when
evaluating the potential exploitation of a certain technology. Considering the GIPT
mechanisms and its potential sources of financial advantages, examination was
focused on minimum achievable skin to core ratios for three material combinations,
the extent of a uniform layer distribution achievable in a relatively complex mould
geometry and adhesion levels between materials comprising the moulding. For
practical purposes and to reduce the complexity of the process, investigation was
focused on a single processing parameter’s effect, the skin materials’ processing
temperature.
2
The cost analysis investigated the individual and combined effects of involved GIPT
parameters that would establish the technique’s financial competitiveness over the
rival technology of through colour single injection mouldings since for the mould
geometry chosen, the in-mould film technique was considered to be inapplicable.
The conclusions respectfully to the scope of the project can collectively provide with
important indications on the GIPT technique’s full commercial uptake prospects. High
initial machinery capital investment and increased process complexity have
previously been identified as a drawback for the wider exploitation of co-injection
moulding technologies and therefore GIPT.
1.2 GUIDE OF SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS
Chapters 2 & 3 introduce the basic principles and concepts of single and co-injection
moulding technologies with their applications in industry. Chapter 4 introduces the
co-injection moulding based GIPT technique with a focus on issues concerning
material combinations and implications for a successful in mould decorated product.
Chapter 4 also includes some GIPT variant techniques of special interest to the
automotive industry. Chapter 5 introduces in brief the basic principles of the two other
most considered alternative IMD techniques. Chapter 6 explores the current business
environment, its manufacturing aspects with a focus on decoration functions and
emerging trends that would assist the commercial exploitation of IMD technologies
and especially GIPT.
3
Research methodology comprises a separate chapter following the literature review
section of this report where the research subject respectfully to the current business
environment is explained and defined. Chapter 7 also includes a separate section
where this project’s research objectives are listed explicitly as well as the research
methods used. Subsequent chapters include a complete experimental approach
description, the research results and their discussion.
Following the conclusions on the set of this research’s objectives listed in Chapter 11,
Chapter 12 lists the author’s suggestions on further research necessary to be
conducted in order for some critical aspects of GIPT to become clearer and therefore
assist the intended extent of GIPT commercial applications and overall exploitation.
4
Chapter 2 Injection Moulding
CHAPTER 2 INJECTION MOULDING
Injection moulding is the most commercially important plastic processing method [1]
which enabled the replacement of traditional materials such as wood and glass with a
great variety of commercial polymeric materials. The technology is capable of
producing high precision, three dimensional polymeric material parts at high
production rates. Injection moulding has grown to be a mature technology with many
variants of the standard process such as gas assisted, water injection and co-injection
moulding, each suitable for specific market applications.
2.1 STANDARD INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS
Injection moulding is a semi-continuous cyclic process [2]. The polymeric material in
form of pellets is heated until melted and is forced into a mould where it is cooled
down to a desired shape.
A reciprocating screw draws the granules from a hopper into a heated barrel which by
rotation, assists the homogenisation of the polymer melt. Once the polymer material
has melted, it is then transported forward in the barrel ahead of the screw and
generates a considerable back pressure which forces the screw backwards. The
rearward motion of the screw sets off a switch which causes the screw to move
forward, thus forcing the melt into the mould. The screw maintains its forward
position to exert pressure through the nozzle while the material is cooling down. This
time margin depends on the polymer material and the mould [1]. Following the
material solidification within the mould, the screw starts rotating to draw a new
5
portion of material from the hopper to fill the mould for the next cycle. The new cycle
initiates when mould is closed upon ejection of the solidified part. The injection
moulding process involves the following four stages [1], [2], [3]:-
1. Plastication
2. Mould Filling
3. Packing
4. Solidification
Plastication involves the mixing and melting of the polymeric material feedstock
conveyed from the hopper into a heating chamber where melting takes place. This
stage produces a homogeneous and formable melt before the material enters the
mould. Material process conditions such as the barrel temperature, the material
rheology, the screw geometry, speed and the back pressure determine the polymer
flow rate. Premature melting of the pellets during the barrel feed should be avoided.
The mould filling stage is crucial to the moulded component’s quality. Slight changes
of the filling rate can cause significant product variations [1], [3]. Rapid injection
rates favour high quality finish [4], high speeds however could result to degradation
of mechanical properties as injected material may not adhere to the tool’s surface.
Significantly lower speeds can result in increased injection pressure requirements
because of thicker frozen layers that could also withhold the follow up pressure on the
moulding while still at plastic stage [4]. Air in the mould’s cavities should be able to
escape during injection in order to avoid compression heat burns. The optimal mould
filling rate depends on the flow characteristics of the melt [1], [4]. Moulds fill in a so
called “fountain flow” pattern illustrated in Figure 1.
6
Figure 1 Schematic of fountain flow in mould filling [3], [5]
The moulded part has an increased density at the solidification stage as a result of
shrinkage. Shrinkage is defined as the dimensional difference of the mould and the
moulding at room temperature [1], [4]. The subsequent dimensions of the moulding
should lie within tolerance limits and the mould design is a factor to be considered. As
a result of the “fountain flow” filling pattern, shrinkage is much greater in the
direction of flow than perpendicular to it [3]. Solidified plastic on the mould wall
becomes more viscous and the reduced effective gap for the incoming melt material to
pass results in higher shear stress. Higher shear stress results into orientation of the
molecular structure to the direction of flow and therefore increased flow dimension
oriented shrinkage. Shrinkage also depends on the wall thickness of the mould which
should be able to provide consistent cooling along the dimension of its surface [6].
Because of these implied factors, shrinkage prediction is extremely difficult and the
preceding packing stage, during which extra material is added to compensate for the
shrinkage, should assist the close as possible to design mould dimensional
consistency. The additional material also assists uniform cooling and helps avoid
warping. The total cooling time extends from the injection initiation until the mould
opening while the residual cooling time refers to the melt’s residence time in the
7
mould until injection [7]. The total cooling time increases proportionally to the
squared part’s wall thickness [7].
2.2 INJECTION MOULDING MACHINE COMPONENTS
Figure 2 illustrates an injection moulding machine standard components.
Figure 2 Injection moulding machine components [7]
The machine frame supports the clamping unit, the mould and the injection unit with
the control cabinet and mould temperature control unit being external or a fixed part
of the machine, especially on modern machines. These components are standard
regardless of the polymeric material to be processed.
The barrel containing the rotating screw is equipped with resistance heating bands.
The rotating screw provides additional heat because of friction. The barrel is divided
into separately heat controlled zones over its length (three to five in small machines
and more for large [1], [7]) with the thermocouple temperature controllers installed in
the control cabinet. A hydraulic injection cylinder, acting as a piston, advances the
8
non rotating screw for the melt to be injected into the mould. The screw advance
speed is profiled by the machine controls since the hydraulic pressure is not constant
during the injection [1], [7].
The clamping unit is responsible for opening and closing the mould for the moulded
part ejection and the initiation of the next moulding cycle respectively. The clamping
unit can be fully hydraulic, mechanical or hydro-mechanical [1], [7]. The platen
closest to the injection unit is firmly attached to the machine frame and is referred to
as fixed or stationary [1], [7]. An important machine specification is the clamping
force, featuring the force with which the two platens are pressed against each other to
prevent the mould from opening during the injection and holding pressure phases.
This index usually denoted as Fs, is used as an initial machine rough characterisation
and ranges from 2  102  105 KN [7].
The mould is not a part of the machine and is designed and constructed according to
the component specifications. As it forms the melt into a part, errors in the design
have an immediate impact on the moulded part quality. The possible design variations
are unlimited and moulds are constructed from standard mould components such as
bolts, guide bushings and pins which are available by third party suppliers. Besides
the mould components and the cooling system, important features include the runner
system layout and the gate positioning. During injection, the melt is forced through
the runner system into the mould cavity through one or more gates, depending on the
mould’s complexity. Gate features a significant cross section reduction in order for
the easier separation of the part from the runner during ejection. Hot runner systems,
despite the peripheral control requirements and the increased costs, provide significant
9
advantages in terms of low pressure requirements for mould filling as well as material
savings since the melt contained remains fluid and can be injected into the cavity
during the next cycle [1]. Cold runner systems also provide the later option but their
usage is mainly to prevent cross-linking due to solidification in case of thermosetting
polymer material processing. Heat exchanger devices comprise mould temperature
controllers that also remove heat from moulded parts in case of thermoplastic material
usage.
2.3 INJECTION MOULDING SYSTEMS
The reciprocating screw system is the latest design of injection moulding machines
and features overall better control of temperature and a more reliable performance by
also being highly effective for vented operations. A reciprocating screw system is
illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Reciprocating screw system [2]
10
The reciprocating screw system development was the result of production
requirements for improved cycle times, injection rates as well as clamping force
requirements. Older systems such as the single stage plunger, two stage plunger-
plunger and two stage screw-plunger exhibited temperature and pressure stability
problems [2].
The standard injection moulding reciprocating screw system process exhibits many
manufacturing advantages, such as large output volume of very small parts, high
continuous production rates and the ability to use a wide range of materials including
asbestos, carbon and glass reinforced [1], [8], [9]. The process is also highly
susceptible to automation with relatively low labour cost per volume [9].
For some thermoplastic materials, high dimensional accuracy is not easy to obtain as
they exhibit relatively high shrinking values [8]. In such cases, the moulded part’s
quality is not easy to determine immediately and therefore a knowledge of the long
term properties of materials used is essential [9].
11
Chapter 3 Co-injection Moulding
CHAPTER 3 CO-INJECTION MOULDING
Co-injection moulding [10], [11], [12] is a variant of the standard injection moulding
process. The process has a number of terminologies associated with such as sandwich
moulding or dual injection and for the purpose of this work, co-injection is the
preferred term. It was initially developed by ICI in 1970 [10] to overcome the inherent
part quality limitations of the structural foam process because of their rough and
irregular surface finish. The technique also exhibited a significant reduction in
material costs.
Co-injection moulding is used for the production of a “sandwich” structure
component with two or more material properties combined by sequential or
simultaneous injection into the same mould. First injected material comprises the
produced component’s skin with the material injected afterwards comprising the core
as illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Core and skin materials flow during co-injection moulding [3]
12
The result is the formation of a layered, distinctive sandwich structure of skin and
core as illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Sandwich structure: co-injection moulding cross-section [3]
3.1 MATERIALS AND PROCESS PRINCIPLES
In order for the co-injection moulded component to retain resultant properties from
the individual material property combinations, a consistent skin thickness is required
with the core material prevented from large scale mixing with the skin. In inconsistent
skin material regions of the part, core material may become visible in the moulding’s
surface. This is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Co-injection moulded part with core breaking through the skin [13]
13
Core breaking through prevention is a difficult technical problem for the production
of a quality co-injection moulded part and the skin to core distribution is highly
influenced by the rheology characteristics of the materials.
3.1.1 RHEOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
The viscosity of selected materials is the most important rheologic parameter because
of its impact in the process dynamics and resultant skin distribution around the core.
Viscosity is a strong function of temperature, shear rate and pressure [3], [14], [15].
As a result of the steep gradients of these parameters during the injection moulding
process, viscosity is subject to changes throughout the moulding cycle. Plastics are
non Newtonian fluids and exhibit the behaviour of pseudoplastic fluids in molten state
[2], [14], [15]. For plastic material melts, viscosity decreases with temperature and
shear rate increase while it decreases with pressure. The production of a distinct
core/layer structure is the result of the forward force exerted to low viscosity material
melt by slightly higher viscosity melts flowing into it. Skin material is injected first,
therefore it settles in the tool’s walls and its viscosity decreases at it starts cooling.
Incoming core material pushes against skin and forces it to further penetrate the
mould cavity which eventually results to core encapsulation. Under this perspective,
the core break thorough occurs when skin melt exhibits low resistance paths enabling
the core melt to follow these paths and become visible in areas of the moulding. The
moulded part is encapsulated only if core and skin viscosities are similar [3],
otherwise the filling pattern is affected with entailed poor quality results in terms of
skin to core distribution. If core material viscosity is lower than of skin’s, unwanted
defects such as “melt fingering” may occur. This is best illustrated in Figure 7.
14
Figure 7 Different viscosity melts’ interface behaviour and the “melt fingering” [3]
Somnuck and Smith have investigated and produced viscosity ratio guides for PP core
and skin materials in simple geometry mouldings [15], [16]. Findings suggested
optimal distribution for viscosity ratios between 0.8 and 1.8 but with different core
percentage for different moulding geometries.
Apart from viscosity, skin to core distribution is also affected by the mould
temperature, the injection rate and the length of the simultaneous phase. Mould
temperature affects the skin material freezing rate and therefore the gradient of
viscosity as the greater the temperature difference between the mould and the skin
material melt, the faster skin solidifies. Higher injection rates enable further
penetration of skin material into the mould cavity and can assist in core breaking
through prevention. Generally, injection rates determine the time frame of skin
material contact with the mould’s surface [17]. The length of simultaneous injection
should be balanced as a short interval between skin and core injection would result in
core breaking through because of low resistance path formations and prolonged would
result in excess skin material accumulation to outer edges of the mould. Rheological
15
explanations of the mechanism however are not sufficient to explain the interfacial
effects described previously. Polymers have both viscous and elastic components and
elastic effects are very possible to occur [2], [3]. Elasticity is increased with shear and
high shears is often the case in injection moulding [3]. Viscoelasticity is also a factor
affecting the thickness of achieved skin layer [18].
3.1.2 TOOLING REQUIREMENTS
Co-injection moulding tooling requirements are the same as with standard injection
moulding, however there are some implied factors. Since mould filling has a strong
impact on the resulting skin to core distribution, the gate positioning is of crucial
importance for some mould designs in co-injection moulding. To prevent
unsatisfactory mouldings, it is some times necessary to incorporate a second gate as
mould filling dynamics may be allowing skin to fully pack areas before core reaches.
Gate positioning effects on core material distribution are illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8 Gate positioning effect on core material distribution [3]
16
Around gate regions may exhibit significantly reduced skin thickness because of
incoming material shear effects [19]. Skin material in those areas is very likely to be
re-melted and swept away into the melt stream from incoming melt material.
Additionally to rheology and processing parameters, more complex mould geometries
also affect the uniform skin and core material distribution. The mechanisms are
complex and poorly understood [3], [13] because of the interrelationships between
injection moulding parameters and viscosities. More complex geometries need to be
further investigated respectfully to skin and core material viscosities and optimum
layer distributions [3], [13], [15], [16].
3.1.3 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In co-injection moulding, core and skin material need to be compatible in terms of
shrinkage and adhesion. Different shrinkage values can cause the materials’ interface
to split with entailed effects in the component’s structural integrity. Adhesion between
skin and core is a requirement and can be achieved by the use of compatibilisers. This
will be discussed further in following chapters.
3.2 CO-INJECTION MOULDING TECHNIQUES
There are two main types of co-injection moulding techniques, sequential injection
and simultaneous injection. Both types exhibit advantages as well as disadvantages. In
sequential injection, skin and core materials are injected one at a time with the single
channel technique being the first commercial co-injection method [3]. The method
however is prone to flow disruption which results to shadow or gloss marks in the
17
moulding [3]. The single channel technique developed by Ferromatic Milacron [20]
and its modified version by Admix [21] are especially good for thin walled parts and
resembles to single injection moulding process. However, the lack of sophisticated
control in skin material thickness makes the technique inappropriate for complex
geometry mouldings [3]. The problems found in sequential techniques were overcome
with the introduction of the simultaneous technique.
3.2.1 SIMULTANEOUS INJECTION-TWO CHANNEL TECHNIQUE
The process was developed by Battenfeld in the mid 1970s [3], [22] and provides a
more enhanced control over the individual skin and core flow velocities. The main
feature is a simultaneous injection phase with a flexible process sequence. A typical
example of the later would be [3]:-
1. Injection of skin to a preset switch point;
2. Core material injection, flowing together with the skin material;
3. Injection of just core;
4. Injection of just skin;
5. Component packing and cooling followed by injection.
The technique utilises two injection units and the simultaneous period of material
flow, of typical duration 25% the skin component’s injection time, initiates
approximately 0.1-0.3 seconds after the skin material injection [3]. The final stage
features skin material injection for the complete encapsulation of the core. This also
seals the gate area and clears the nozzle from core material for the next shot.
18
The nozzle consists of two separate concentric channels and enables a constant flow
front velocity [22]. Because of the simultaneous injection phase, there are no pressure
drops in the cavity as found in the single channel technique. Since the nozzle channels
can be independently operated, skin and core materials distribution can be carefully
controlled, as opposed to the mono-sandwich technique. A Battenfeld two channel
co-injection moulding technique is illustrated in Figure 9.
Figure 9 Battenfeld two channel co-injection moulding technique (modified from
Love, J. C. and Goodship, V. [3])
An extra channel in the centre of the gate, reaching the opposite side of the mould can
be used to feed an intermediate layer of adhesive-bonding material or skin material for
skin thickness adjustments in the gate area.
3.3 CO-INJECTION MOULDING APPLICATIONS
Multi-material injection moulding is a fast growing sector in the plastics processing
industry with capabilities offered by many major machine manufacturers [23], [24],
19
[25], [26], [27], [28]. The growing importance for added value in manufacturing has
pushed multi-material moulding and the fast growing trend is evident by the
commercial advantages offered to moulders [13], [29], [30], [31], [32] as well as the
regional transfer of the moulding market trade to cheaper manufacturing sectors of the
Far East [3]. Table 1 summarises some commercial applications.
Table 1 Applications for co-injection moulding [17]
Material Combination Properties Application

Soft feel skin/ hard core High strength core with Door handles, gear lever
soft feel skin
Virgin skin/recycled core Environmental friendly Garden furniture,
production, cost saving automotive bumpers
Unfilled skin/reinforced High surface finish, Automotive door handles
core structural performance
Unfilled skin/core with Electromagnetic Computer housings
conductive filler interference shielding
In mould paint/ variable No product finishing after Wheel trims
core mould required
Pigmented Reduced pigment cost, Yoghurt pot
skins/uncoloured core aesthetics
Traditional standard injection moulding applications is a mature market [3] and
increased competition leads trade moulders to more technically challenging markets.
The technological establishment of Europe in multi-material tool making has set high
quality standards, with German manufacturers having invested first in these moulding
technologies [3].
The high capital investment for multi-material moulding however still tends to be a
draw back along with the process’ complexity [3], [33]. Multi-material moulding
enables the production of a well designed component and that can often repay initial
investment relatively fast. By eliminating assembly steps through separate moulding
jobs combinations or the need for further finishing, considerable unit cost reductions
20
can be achieved. Applications of multi-material mouldings offer unique opportunities
for standardised product design transformations and provide a more attractive end
product. The high market competition could inspire a positive step towards adapting
multi-material moulding technologies.
21
Chapter 4 GIPT
CHAPTER 4 GIPT
GIPT (Granular Injected Paint Technology) is a material specific version of co-
injection moulding and an in mould decoration (IMD) technique for in-mould
thermoplastic substrates painting, capable of directly producing an injection moulded,
in-mould coated component [13], [34], [35]. The coating selection should be able to
provide properties expected from paint such as fine appearance, lasting and intended
application specified endurance to environmental conditions and handling. The
concept and associated components were initially developed as a consequence of the
EPIC research collaboration featuring 25 companies from United Kingdom, Europe
and USA devoted in six major engineering polymer research areas including [34],
[36], [37]:-
 Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG, The University of Warwick, UK) as co-
developer with Moldflow of a flow and gating simulation package;
 Battenfeld (UK) as simultaneous co-injection moulding technology providers;
 Moldflow (Europe) as process simulation and control providers;
 Rover Group as end users and intended commercial exploitation leaders [38].
Rover group acknowledged the ability to produce “Class A” (high gloss, high
distinctness and accurate colour matching [39], [40]) in-mould painted plastic
components as an efficient technical based strategy and the pre EPIC collaboration
with Battenfeld and Warwick Manufacturing Group lead to the development of the
initial objective which was the production of a low cost thermoplastic system, suitable
for low volume automotive use complex surfaces and not requiring further painting.
22
Chapter 4 GIPT
The GIPT system research objectives to develop the concept into a feasible
technology were [41]:-
 Chemical property based GIPT suitable coating material identification;
 GIPT application oriented adhesion processes identification through moulding and
mechanical testings;
 Decorative effect, geometrical limitations, environmental resistance and cost
comparisons to other decorating solutions available;
 GIPT appropriate technology applications identification.
The program was sponsored by the UK government Department of Trade and
Industry with the Warwick Manufacturing Group involved in the investigation and
development of several in-mould decoration technologies. The co-injection
technology was considered to be the most successful among the in-mould decorating
technologies investigated by the Warwick Manufacturing Group, resulting to the
patented GIPT process [42]. The GIPT concept was awarded a Certificate of
Excellence for Manufacturing with Polymers at the PRW Awards for Excellence,
Interplas 1993 [13].
4.1 GIPT PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The GIPT development was based on the Battenfeld simultaneous co-injection
moulding technique where the paint and core materials are injected from two barrels
through a single nozzle into the mould through concentric channels, in order to form a
23
Chapter 4 GIPT
sandwiched layer of core surrounded by the paint coating as described earlier in
Chapter 3 and illustrated in Figure 10.
Figure 10 GIPT simultaneous co-injection moulding process (amended from Love, J.
C. and Goodship, V. [13] and Smith, G. [44])
The paint material is injected first and solidifies as it gets in contact with the relatively
cool mould walls. Core material is injected after approximately 0.1s and flows
simultaneously behind the skin to fill the remainder of the mould. Injection of only
paint material consists the last packing phase of the process cycle with the formation
of a painted finish in the area of the sprue. In order to avoid contamination of paint
skin with core material at the initiation of the next process cycle, injection nozzle is
24
Chapter 4 GIPT
flushed with paint. Quick colour changes are enabled by self purging, individually
operable shut-offs mechanisms in both concentric channels. The good repeatability
and reliability for the process is aided by a closed loop microprocessor machine
control system, profiling the injection of the core and paint material in 15 steps.
Traditional hot runner manifolds are considered unsuitable for the process since
mixing of paint and core material is possible to occur in the cross head channels
accordingly to H. Eckardt’s suggestions [15], [43]. Figure 11 illustrates wheel trim
fixings decorated with GIPT.
Figure 11 GIPT decorated wheel trim fixings [44]
For a moulded disk, the GIPT co-injection moulding exhibits limitations to
incorporating a maximum of 70% core by volume before the core breaks through the
skin [13]. In order to achieve good paint like layer properties for a moulded part, a
minimum paint layer of 35μm thickness should be evenly distributed around the core
[13]. The edges of the moulding however, as wells as any weld lines, will consist only
of paint material with thicker layers than average especially around gates. This brings
rise to considerations regarding the implications of the moulded part’s mechanical
25
Chapter 4 GIPT
properties, especially if the part incorporates clips or fixings of flow paths as
illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure 12 Wheel trim fixing which contains excess paint material [44]
As it is the case with simultaneous co-injection moulding, GIPT is subject to
geometrical limitations. Parts with an even or slightly reducing wall thickness along
the flow paths will be produced at best quality with GIPT because of the balanced
flow and absence of holes [13], [15]. The quality of the in-mould decorated
components with GIPT in terms of uniform distribution of paint all around the core
material can be optimised by the use of analysis tools such as Moldflow [45]. It
should be noted however that in GIPT application for in-mould decoration, a small
ridge formation at the component’s edge paint surface related to the core finish
position is possible to be observed, especially in the case of high gloss parts.
26
Chapter 4 GIPT
As with co-injection moulding, the distribution of skin around the core was found to
be controlled by the rheological properties of the polymers, the machine processing
parameters control and the gate positioning [13], [15], [16] which should be able to
provide a uniform distribution of the paint all around the core material.
4.2 MATERIALS SELECTION AND CONSIDERATIONS
GIPT coating selections are based on materials that are colourable and injection
mouldable since other desired properties depend on intended applications and vary
between industries. Examples of some application property requirements are listed in
Table 2.
Table 2 Overview of application property requirements [46]
Exterior Automotive Table Cutlery Handle Dustbin
Component
Acid Resistance Good Resistance No requirement No requirement
Organic Fluid
Good Resistance Average resistance No requirement
resistance
Weathering Good humidity

No requirement No requirement
Resistance and heat resistance
Gloss High gloss No requirement No requirement
UV Resistance Good resistance Average light resistance No requirement
GIPT appropriate paint coatings should be able to provide at least an equal or better
result than other currently available decorating options. Powder coating based paint
27
Chapter 4 GIPT
formulations comprise a polymer base plus additives. As opposed to liquid paints,
resins used in powder coatings are solid at ambient and elevated storage temperatures
while having a low viscosity when heated to melt [47], [48]. Among the two major
types available, thermoplastic paint coatings are most suitable for GIPT applications
because of their flow and reformation properties upon heat application [13]. At
elevated temperatures, thermosetting powder coatings exhibit chemical cross-linking
within the molecules or other reactive components which results to a complex
interconnected network and thus a higher molecular weight product. Because of their
increased heat stability, thermosetting powder coatings will not soften back to melt
state when further exposed to heat. The risk of thermosetting powder coatings curing
in the injection barrel makes their use with GIPT complicated and therefore
thermoplastic powder coating which may include partially or temporarily cross-
linking species are more suitable [13].
The technological achievements of the past few years have significantly developed
finishing processes based on powder coatings which apart from virtually any colour
matching and glosses abilities applicable at coating thicknesses in the 1 to 3 mil
(approximately 0.025 to 0.075 mm) vicinity [47], they are able to comply with the
stringent requirements for substrate protection such as weathering, scratch and
chemical resistance [47], [48]. In cases where available single coating options fail to
provide all required properties, additives appear as a valid option. The use of additives
however can bring rise to considerations regarding possible degradation of other paint
properties of the chosen decoration material.
28
Chapter 4 GIPT
From the appearance qualities, gloss and orange peel are the most important. They are
both related to the structure’s surface and interaction with the light and are considered
of main importance to the customers [49]. Gloss is an indicator of the amount and
direction of light reflected by a surface [48], [50] while the term “orange peel” is used
to describe a dimple and with short term waviness (6  10-4 m) surface [51], [52]. The
associated terms with the previously referred surface appearance properties can be
interpreted in many ways but with little difference between definitions [52], [53],
[54], [55]. For this reason, “Class A” finish standards can be different among
automotive industries with disagreements and confusion shrouding the topic [46]. It
should be noted that individual standards by manufacturers are some times more than
a decade old [54] and industrial finish assessment tests against these standards are
very costly (7 million ₤ per annum for BMW [56]). Previous research has shown that
orange peel is not important in appearance assessment by customers, usually
untrained for this and therefore some standards involve highly overestimated factors
that entail unnecessarily high costs [56].
An important parameter to be considered in powder coatings is their ability to
withstand when in contact with a variety of chemicals and environments. The effect of
chemicals varies and depends on the coating’s solubility characteristics, permeability
and vulnerability to cross-linking reactions or degradation [57]. For the automotive
industry, weathering is a very important parameter and tests assess the durability of a
paint coating to withstand the destructive effect of conditions combining heat,
humidity oxygen, zone and radiation. The most reliable tests involve five year outdoor
exposure to Florida USA with measurements taken every 6 months [48]. Other tests,
29
Chapter 4 GIPT
typical for all kinds of paint coating involve mechanical properties assessments such
as scratch, abrasion, hardness and impact [58], [59], [60], [61].
Current recommended paint coatings for GIPT with PA and PP substrates are from
EMS Chemie (Grilamid) and DuPont (Surlyn Reflections) [13] but with any
thermoplastic type injection mouldable paints applicable in this way. It should be
noted however that GIPT failed Rover’s Engineering Standard of accelerated UV test,
equivalent to 5 years Florida exposure [62].
4.2.1 ADHESION
Adhesion between the core and paint coating material is usually a prerequisite for the
moulded part’s good structural integrity besides the long term lasting of the decorative
effect [63]. Stress should be able to be uniformly distributed to the moulded part’s
constituent materials, especially if the coating material is not to encapsulate the part’s
core material. Adhesion is achieved by the use of compatible materials. For the GIPT
technique, adhesion requirements can also be met by the use of chemical
compatibilisers, exploitation of interfacial instabilities and core material
encapsulation.
4.2.1.1 COMPATIBLE MATERIALS
Compatibility, in terms of adhesion between plastic materials for the GIPT in-mould
decoration technique, can be explained through chemical similarities in
macromolecular structures thus mixing readily due to Brownian motion [64]. A
30
Chapter 4 GIPT
chemical reaction between species in a molten state could also be the result of
macromolecular chains attraction through the generation of secondary forces such as
London or hydrogen bonding [65]. From the chemical thermodynamics point of view,
paint coating and core material selection have a Gibbs free energy of mixing negative
( Gmix  0 ) if adherence is achieved in molten state due to chemical reaction [66],
[67], [68]. Valid paint coating and core material combinations, in terms of molten
state expected adherence, can be obtained by tables such as Table 3.
Table 3 Material compatibility table [3], [13], [69]
PPO mod
PMMA
HDPE
LDPE
PA66
POM
EVA
ASA
ABS
PBT
PA6
PET
PC
PP
ABS + + + + + - - + + - - -
ASA + + + + + - - + + - - -
EVA + + + + + +
PA6 + + * * * * - * -
PA66 + + * * * * - - -
PBT + + * * + + - - + - - - -
PC + + * * + + - - + - - -
HDPE - - + * * - - + + - * * - -
LDPE - - + * * - - + + - * * + -
PET + + + + - - + - - -
PMMA + + - * * - + * -
POM - - - - - - * * - + - -
PP - - + * - - - - + * - + -
PPO mod - - - - - - - - - - - - +
- No adhesion, * Poor adhesion, + Good adhesion
According to the contents of the Table 3, a paint coating and core based on the same
material, PET for example, are anticipated to be compatible. This would result in
satisfactory stress test performance, easy de-moulding and good structural integrity.
Since no other mechanism is required to achieve adhesion, no extra costs should be
expected for the production of a quality product.
31
Chapter 4 GIPT
It should be noted however that the reliability of compatibility tables is limited.
Compatibility tables are often incomplete, they do not include all available grades of
materials and occasionally provide contradictory information when compared against
different literature sources. A typical example of the later would be the PA6 and PA66
compatibility properties appearing grouped [70], [71] or separated [15], [72]. The
presence of any additives, fillers or plasticisers in order to have modified physical and
mechanical property profiles of polymers (grades), could also affect any bond
formation mechanisms and its strength [3], [19]. The inter-diffusion rates between
paint coating and core material and therefore the quality of the final component can be
affected by the injection moulding processing conditions as well [3], [19]. The effects
on bond formation and its strength are complicated and not well understood [3], [19]
and for these reasons, the experimental route is the most appropriate method to
examine any compatibility levels. If selected materials prove to be naturally
compatible, complex geometry GIPT component quality can be significantly
benefited by the two barrel material injection speeds profiling [13].
4.2.1.2 CHEMICAL COMPATIBILISATION
The easy removal of the core material from a GIPT component when the paint coating
is broken is an indication of the incompatibility between selected materials. Upon
separation, incompatible materials have relatively smooth surfaces. The limitations
posed by compatible paint and core materials in GIPT can be overcome by the use of
chemical compatibilisers. Compatibilisers were originally used for polymer blends
preparation [66] (multiple glass transition temperatures and properties an average of
32
Chapter 4 GIPT
the individual components [73]) in order to keep the phases from separating. The
same materials used for polymer blends can normally be used for GIPT.
Chemical compatibilisers can be added to both skin and core materials in order to
achieve suitable adhesion levels in multi-material injection moulding processes. In
GIPT however, addition of compatibiliser agents to the paint coating material is
avoided as it is very possible to have the paint material’s properties affected resulting
to a detrimental decorative effect for the final product [13]. A 10% wt core material
substitution with compatibiliser additives can significantly improve adhesion to the
required standards depending on the product’s intended application but it can entail
significantly increased costs.
Compatibilisers contain distinct sections of chemical species miscible with the paint
coating polymer material and others miscible with the core polymer material.
Intended application suitable levels of compatibilisers results in adhesion through the
formation of chemical bonds across the interface of the paint coating and core
incompatible materials. The bond formation chemical reaction is triggered by the
application of heat and pressure when the two incompatible materials are in molten
contact with each other (stages 2 and 3 of GIPT process respectfully to Figure 10).
The PP-g-MA chemical compatibiliser has proven to be successfully effective in
creating adhesion for the PP/PA6 and PP/PA material combinations and this approach
is also co-injection moulding applicable [72]. The interface chemical reaction bond
formation strength is related to the molecular weight of the grafted compatibiliser,
usually high, the molten contact time of the coating and core materials and the number
33
Chapter 4 GIPT
of sites available (a result of the grafts per chain) [74]. Figure 13 illustrates the bond
formation mechanism between PP and PA with PP-g-MA compatibiliser. The PP-g-
MA can easily be mixed with the PP core material and the anhydride group of the
compatibiliser reacts with the terminal amine group in the PA macromolecular chain
providing a chemical bond between PP and PA.
Figure 13 Reaction between the anhydride of PP-g-MA and amine group of PA at the
PP/PA interface [72].
In GIPT, core and paint coating materials form discrete layers with no large scale
interfacial mixing. For this reason, the chemical bonds formed between incompatible
materials with the use of compatibiliser additives are less strong than bonds between
compatible materials. The use of compatibilisers however was found to provide with
adequate adhesion levels for GIPT application requirements [75]. Chemical
compatibilisation may however result into a ridge around the position of the skin and
core interface on the moulding’s surface [5], [75]. This defect may be noticeable on
high gloss GIPT decorated parts and it should be taken into consideration when
designing chemically compatibilished GIPT mouldings [13].
34
Chapter 4 GIPT
4.2.1.3 INTERFACIAL INSTABILITIES
Interfacial instabilities are generally considered to be undesirable side-effects
generated on the produced components during the co-extrusion moulding process.
These disturbances are usually referred to as “sharkskin” or “melt fracture” [5], [41].
The GIPT related research does not aim to investigate the causes and control
mechanisms of interfacial instabilities but considers its applications to achieve
adhesion between incompatible materials and have part production costs reduced.
The concept of interfacial instabilities induction to mix incompatible materials at their
interface in the injection moulding process by achieving a mechanical interlock form
of adhesion was first introduced by V. Goodship [5]. Research has shown that
interfacial instabilities prevent bubbling of incompatible material mouldings that do
not containing compatibilisers under conditions of humidity and high temperature [5],
[46]. Bubbling effect in samples containing moderate levels of compatibilisers is an
indication of the superior adhesion levels achievable through interfacial instabilities
[5], [46]. Interfacial instabilities have also proven to be effective in the prevention of
the visible defect in chemically compatibilished mouldings [5], [46], possibly of
critical importance in GIPT produced components.
4.2.1.4 ENCAPSULATION
If selected materials are not naturally compatible, an alternative route to maintain
structural integrity in a GIPT produced component is encapsulation where the paint
coating completely surrounds the core material. The encapsulation option for the
35
Chapter 4 GIPT
GIPT process can produce components acceptable from the appearance point of view
as well as for several non structural applications with no extra associated costs as it is
the case with compatibiliser additives. Processing problems may however occur since
the component may not be easily removed from the mould without any structural
damage in terms of core and paint coating separation. For the later, the mould’s
geometry and forces exerted during the de-moulding process are critical parameters.
Experiments have shown that some components can safely be removed from the
mould without any damage [75] but if separation of paint coating and core occurs
during de-moulding, humidity, heat ageing and environmental recycling can
exacerbate the extend of this damage [46].
4.3 GIPT VARIANTS
Similar in some aspects to the GIPT technique for in-mould decoration of
components, in-mould priming is also a form of in-mould decoration. In-mould
priming is also based on the simultaneous co-injection moulding technique but the
difference with GIPT is that components directly produced are only partially
decorated and therefore further processing to apply a final top coating is required
before the component is complete.
4.3.1 IN-MOULD PRIMING OF POLYPROPYLENE
Automotive industry production lines are equipped with a series of paint application
and paint drying or heated stoving on-line functions. For colour matching
36
Chapter 4 GIPT
requirements and manufacturing process flow purposes, any polymeric based
materials attached to steel body car structures should ideally be painted on-line by
using the same systems as the body structures. Expensive engineering plastic
materials such as Noryl GTX are appropriate for the previously described
manufacturing route [13] but cheaper bulk materials such as PP will not withstand the
temperatures developed in on-line painting processes [13]. Temperature resistant
engineered polymers utilisation is likely to bring rise to stability problems [76]
because of the inevitable temperature variations.
The main application of PP in-mould priming is to significantly improve the
temperature stability of PP injection mouldings in order for the post-moulding
automotive on-line painting process to be enabled and override the PP components
surface treat process before the paint application. PP in-mould primed components
with PA6 as the skin material have proven to be able to withstand typical stoving
temperatures of 180OC of on-line automotive painting functions [77] and exhibit
improved paintability [13].
4.3.2 IN-MOULD PRIMING OF COMPOSITES
A common problem during the injection moulding of fibre reinforced polymer
materials is the formation of pores and craters in the component’s surface, often not
visible with the naked eye until the component is painted with the surface anomalies
being highly apparent and resulting in the production of high value and large volume
scraps or parts in need for rework [78], [79]. This phenomenon is because of the
different densifying and shrinking rates of the part’s polymeric phase and reinforcing
37
Chapter 4 GIPT
fibres during the cooling down phase. The polymeric phase of the component shrinks
more than the reinforcing fibres. Exposed fibres form an uneven surface for the
injection moulded component. In order for the paint to be efficiently applied, the
component’s surface must be as smooth as possible, therefore rigorous sanding of the
surface is necessary to have it sufficiently smoothed for post mould paint application.
An in-mould applied unfilled thermoplastic material surface coating eliminates
porosity or craters and provides a smooth base for further post mould decoration. The
effect of fibres and the outer coating is illustrated in Figure 14.
Figure 14 In-mould priming of a composite to provide surface smoothness [13]
The alternative route of post-mould priming can bring rise to problems such as fibre
de-bonding and micro-cracking of uncoated fibre reinforced materials with aging as
the solvents used can penetrate the component’s surface [78]. In-mould priming has
shown to be a more cost effective manufacturing route in such cases [80].
Both in-mould priming techniques described have been developed as a consequence
of the GIPT related EPIC collaboration [13].
38
Chapter 5 Alternative IMD Technologies
CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVE IMD TECHNOLOGIES
In-mould decoration technology (IMD) covers many techniques in which a moulding
process is used to directly produce a fully or partially decorated plastic component.
There are many terms associated with in-mould decoration technologies and the
differences between these terms are somewhat ambiguous. Apart from GIPT
introduced in the previous chapter, through colour mouldings and in-mould paint
films are also IMD techniques that make use of thermoplastic coating materials in
injection moulding to produce a wide variety of directly decorated parts such as
automotive components or electrical equipment housings [13], [81].
5.1 THROUGH COLOUR MOULDINGS
Injection in-mould specialty polymer paints suitable for GIPT can be used to produce
an entire component. Such paint polymers come at a wide range of colours from
manufactures such as GE Plastics (Xenoy and Xylex) and Dupont (Surlyn
Reflections) [13] and are also weatherable and mouldable.
The exploitation of conventional injection moulding techniques makes the colour
thorough moulding process a lot easier compared to GIPT. Considering however the
amounts of specialty pigments needed to provide the colour all the way through the
mould whilst retaining mechanical properties for these materials, colour through
moulding may be a more expensive manufacturing option for similar cycle times and
accounting procedures with no significantly improved decorative effect [13], [82].
39
5.2 IN-MOULD FILM DECORATION
In-mould films have been used for plastic parts decoration since the 1970s [13]. The
films are often multilayered with the dominant component being backing, while
coloured and clear layers contribute in similar ways to the traditional paint layers such
as colour and durability respectively. The result is a smooth seamless surface with
high endurance to UV light and humidity. The technique is capable of high gloss
transparent as well as graphics or patterns decorations in the surface [13].
Films can be applied in-mould to decorate injection moulded plastic parts with the
process referred to as in-mould labelling. The thermoplastic material layer of the film
needs to be compatible with the material’s surface to be decorated in order to achieve
adhesion. The in-mould labelling of flat or slightly curved components can use the
film straight of from the roll as illustrated in Figure 15.
Figure 15 In-mould labelling process [44]
40
A usual film feeder system is applied for continuous supply of film reel straight from
the roll with rewind, brake and alignment controls. The film is stretched between the
reels across the mould which when closed, clamps the film in place.
For curved components, the application of a film pre-forming technique is necessary
[83] with thermoforming being the most common, where heat and pressure are
applied to soften the film and form it to the desired shape. Accurate temperature
control is vital since with crystalline and semi-crystalline materials, pressure and
stretching can lead to uncontrolled crystallisation which can cause the film to break.
Trimming is essential after pre-forming [13]. The film’s positioning into the mould
can be a problem for by hand placement but pick and place devices used for product
removal can be adopted for this process stage. Processing problems can rise from the
film shrinkage, exact size and shape matching with the tool which should not stretch
or wrinkle the film when closed. An injection moulded in-mould labelled component
is shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16 In-mould labelling of an automotive interior trim [84]
41
Chapter 6 Perspectives of GIPT in Industry
CHAPTER 6 PERSPECTIVES OF GIPT IN INDUSTRY
The contemporary market environment, especially in the automotive and mobile
phones industries, suggests a trend towards viewing the customer as an individual
personality. The trend was initiated in the automotive industry in order for car sales to
be boosted and this trend is expected to spread into other industries as well [85]. For
the automotive industry, this trend has a greater impact as more versions of a given
product imply smaller production volumes where steel as basic automotive panels
material choice results in increased production costs [86]. Steel is more cost effective
for large volumes due to low piece cost but for low volumes, the use of thermoplastic
materials appears to be the most cost efficient solution as illustrated in Figure 17.
Figure 17 Effect of volume on piece cost (amended from Shale, S. G. [87])
42
The cost efficiency of thermoplastic materials for low volume automotive panels
manufacturing as illustrated in Figure 17, is because of the steel pressing tooling costs
that can reach about 1 billion US $ for a new car body [88]. Thermoplastic systems
generally entail higher material costs but in many cases, low cost tooling can be used
[41]. Figure 18 illustrates the production costs with volume for a typical plastic
component with the injection moulding technique compared against other plastic
processing techniques.
Figure 18 Comparative production costs for a typical plastic component [89]
Typical examples of low cost tooling for thermoplastic materials are high temperature
epoxy resin, Keltool, a proprietary tooling technique owned by 3D Tooling capable of
producing up to 100 mm3 tooling volume and spray metal tooling [90]. High
temperature epoxy resin is suitable for low processing temperature plastics, low
pressures and short runs but all previously referred techniques are not suitable for all
geometries because of distortions and dimensional consistency [90].
43
According to Figure 17, thermoplastic systems appear to be cost efficient for
production volumes of 20,000 to 25,000. However, the production volume range at
which the use of thermoplastic materials in car body panels is cost effective
respectfully to the use of steel depends on the exact vehicle and its production
process. Respectfully to the aspects of manufacturing processes, estimations on the
critical upper production volume vary widely from 22,000 to 125,000 units per annum
[88], [91], [92].
The Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems has acknowledged the need
to consider changes in material selection in the automotive industry [93]. Towards
that direction, many vehicles have become available with polymeric material body
structure such as Smart, Horlacher, Ligier Nova and Due [94]. Additional benefits
from the exploitation of polymeric material technology can be found in the achievable
weight reduction. Vehicle weight reduction results in reduced fuel consumption,
reduced exhaust emission and overall performance improvement which is cheaper for
owners to run [93], [95]. Daimler Chrysler has calculated a 46% weight saving for
their new concept car’s Dodge ESX3 bodywork through the use of thermoplastic
panels and a 15% production cost reduction for an unstated volume of produced cars
[93].
6.1 PAINT SHOP ASSOCIATED COSTS
The vehicle manufacturing industry is also concerned with paint shop areas associated
costs. Paint shops imply large financial investments additionally to the health and
44
safety hazards arising from the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions [47].
The basic requirements for paint shop finished parts are [47]:-
1. Space and equipment for cleaning, pre-treatment, application and curing;
2. Manpower;
3. Paint material and supplies;
4. Energy washing, drying, spraybooth as well as oven makeup air and curing
oven;
5. Waste disposal;
6. Rejected parts due to finish, i.e., runs, sags, scratches and other damages to the
finish.
When considering costs, the entire finishing system should be evaluated and that
includes all costs added to the manufacturers throughout the expected life of products,
starting at the entrance area of the paint shop. Individual requirements and needs
respectfully to applications suggest different emphasis on every considered area such
as energy, labour, operating efficiency and safety.
The most significant cost advantage by the use of thermoplastic paint systems is the
elimination of special air makeup functions since no volatile in room temperature
compounds are present and therefore air makeup can be recirculated to the plant. This
is quite advantageous in cases where the plant’s location suggests extreme weather
conditions during most of the production periods. In most paint shop operations, costs
associated with heating makeup air are a sizeable figure [47] and the elimination of
45
associated functions can provide with significant savings as it is the case for
thermoplastic systems.
Because of the toxicity and association with climatic effects, VOC emissions are
covered by environmental regulations. VOCs are substances that evaporate from
drying paints which include carbon based species such as hydrocarbons as well as
halogenated, sulphonated and polyelemental organics like all traditional organic paint
solvents excluding water [47], [96]. Ovens that cure solvent based paints must heat
and exhaust huge volumes of air to ensure that solvent fumes do not reach explosive
levels of concentration. With thermoplastic systems, such solvents are not present and
the exhaust produced by ovens is lower with energy and further cost savings.
According to N.F.P.A 86-A, 10,000 SFC of air need to be exhausted from the oven
for each gallon of solvent load [47] and it should be noted that powder coatings
contain very little amount of volatiles.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and regulations PG6/23(97) referring to paint
applications in vehicle manufacturing, limits the use of lead and other heavy metals in
paints besides the restrictions posed for VOCs and dust emissions in the atmosphere
[97]. For high volume car manufacturers, VOC emissions are restricted to 60gm-2 for
the total of the car painting process [96]. Additional problems for the car
manufacturing industry arise from the off-line painting of components. Off-line
painting features low paint use efficiency and the intensive labour required for
painting and material handling add to the cost of products [98]. The labour costs and
therefore potential savings depend on individual finishing functions, production
requirements and part configuration. The savings in labour costs with the use of
46
thermoplastic systems can be identified from the less training required to handle
thermoplastic based powders. Powders delivered in plants are ready to use with no
need of mixing any solvents or catalysts prior to application as it is necessary with all
liquid paints. Considering the lack of critical parameter maintenance requirements
such as pH or viscosity with liquid paints, the levels of skill and training are much
less.
Since thermoplastic material based paints do not drip, run or sag, lower reject rates
can be achieved and with appropriate application equipment including recovery
methods, overall utilisation and efficiency of 95% to 98% is easily achievable.
Maintenance costs are low as most clean ups can be performed with an industrial
vacuum cleaner fitted with an air driven or dust tight electric motor. The lack of
sludge and contained solvents enables the recovery and reuse of excess material.
Disposal problems are minimised as these can be handled as non-water soluble solids.
Thermoplastic based painted parts can be racked closer together on conveyors and
therefore more parts can pass through the production line at a given period of time.
This results in greater operating efficiency respectfully to paint shop finishing
operations in terms of cost and time. Thermoplastic coatings exhibit increased abuse
resistance and therefore the potential damages as a result of handling and assembly
operations are minimised with the elimination of touch-up needs and lower reject
rates contributing significantly to overall savings.
Additional savings can be achieved from issues concerning the plant safety. The lack
of solvents in thermoplastic powder coatings reduces fire risks significantly and
47
therefore plant insurance premiums considerably. Finally, the amount of space
required for paint shops and liquid paint storage can be significantly reduced and this
enables a more productive and efficient use of this extra available plant space.
6.2 APPROPRIATE IMD TECHNIQUE SELECTION
Polymer processors are increasingly required to be providers of complete systems
including decoration rather than just individual components [99]. Decoration
processes outsourcing often entails quality, production time and profit issues.
Considering the expected growth in thermoplastic material utilisation in the
automotive industry, the current market trend of product personalisation/
differentiation, the unfeasibility of a complete paint shop installation for some
polymer processors and the entailed costs and environmental considerations
associated with paint shops as described previously, in-mould decoration appears as a
realistic and cost efficient option.
When it comes to produced parts decoration without the use of a paint shop, it is
essential to consider which technology is the most appropriate. Apart from the volume
as already discussed, shape of surfaces to be decorated is the next most influential
factor in the technological route decision.
Vacuum forming coated sheets and films can provide with a good quality single side
decoration and as already discussed, these can be formed and then applied in-mould to
injection moulded parts. The use of films enables the incorporation of joins in single
side decorations. In order for the successful use of films for single side decorations,
48
vacuum forming applications must avoid undercuts and in-mould decoration of
injection moulded parts must avoid deep draws, severe undercuts and thickness
changes, wraparound and sharp corners [13]. The advantages of in-mould films come
at a price. The machinery investment has been estimated at between 50,000 and
200,000 US $ [13]. Additionally to the machinery investment, operating costs and
longer moulding cycles should be added to the costs. Typical examples would be a
15% slowdown in production using wheel extrusion blow moulding and 20% with
shuttle machines [100].
In cases where more than one surfaces are to be decorated and/or surface features
deep draws and other intricacies discussed above, injection moulding with through
colour and weatherable polymers appears as a valid option to avoid paint shops. In
these cases, the paint coating properties and appearance are provided by the
thermoplastic system used it self and in many cases no further coating is necessary
[13]. However, the achievement of these properties comes through the use of very
expensive polymers and that appears to be a limiting factor for the required
production volumes.
Simultaneous co-injection moulding, allowing the incorporation of a cheap material
inside a very expensive thermoplastic paint coating into one moulding is an
acceptable route to reduce production costs. The GIPT technique features the use of
an injection mouldable paint or primer material that forms a moulding’s coating. In
the case of injection mouldable paints, the coating can provide the same properties
expected from a typical liquid based paint decorative coating. Co-injection moulding
based GIPT provides with many opportunities to reduce production costs as it is
49
possible to have recycled material used as core and therefore the component
production is cheaper while at the same time environmental targets can be achieved
by manufacturers. GIPT in-mould decorated components with compatible and
compatibilised materials are recyclable since they can be granulated and reused as
core materials behind suitable paint coatings to produce new components [75].
The GIPT inherent recycling potential would assist the automotive industry to comply
with environmental legislations. A typical European Union example of legislation
affecting automotive manufacturers and suppliers, is the end-of-life vehicle directive
(ELV), Directive 2000/53/EC and there are similar legislations in place for countries
such as the USA and Canada [3]. It is therefore evident that many future plastics
applications will be subject to recycling capability considerations. Recycling
capabilities are very important considering the world wide injection moulding
production volumes. Under this perspective, GIPT is an excellent solution since
recycled materials, including post industrial painted plastics with the exception of
transparent materials [3], can be buried in the core. Ford P207 Fascia model is a
typical automotive industry example of recycled material utilisation in parts [3]. Apart
from the design capabilities, the GIPT recycling potential should assist initial capital
investment co-injection machinery to become more tolerable. The environmental
recycling legislations are expected to become a major driver towards IMD
technologies with recycling potential like GIPT, in order to maintain market
competitiveness and at the same time avoid financial cost penalties for non
compliance with regulations.
50
PSA Peugeot Citroën has performed a cost benefit analysis for the potential use of
IMD technologies as an alternative to paint shops and in alignment with the new
trends in the automotive industry. Potential savings have been identified from the
exploitation of such technologies respectfully to design potentials as illustrated in
Figure 19.
Figure 19 PSA Peugeot Citroën cost benefit analysis of in-mould technologies [84]
PSA Peugeot Citroën acknowledges that these technologies are still in a learning
curve level if they were to be fully employed but their success in the automotive
manufacturing industry depends on factors such as the global aspects of the supply
chain during developments and the choice of the right decoration process during part
definition [84]. For the later, PSA Peugeot Citroën suggests that decorative choice and
part definition overlapping would ensure process feasibility and therefore any
industrial and developmental constraints would be avoided as illustrated in Figure 20.
In all cases, cost benefit conclusions from the employment of an available in-mould
decoration technique overrunning paint shops will depend on parts to be decorated in
51
terms of size and number, the car market segments considered and the design targets
that a decoration technique aims to fulfil. Some IMD techniques require additional
equipment which is different for every technique and their cost should be taken into
account when designing a product. The choice of the appropriate IMD technique is a
strategic decision that should combine marketing and technical requirements.
Figure 20 Thermoplastic material IMD technique selection in automotive industry
[84]
It is evident that in-mould decoration technologies, as alternatives to paint shops, are
considered to be complementary processes and are not expected to totally substitute
others used in the car manufacturing industry. The extend of substitution will depend
on factors previously mentioned as well as developments in the thermoplastic
materials industry and their ability to provide finishes that match those of traditional
liquid paints.
The GIPT technique is a method that offers some advantages over the competitive
technologies and its application value in the automotive industry will depend on
52
factors primarily arising from part definition including size and number. Among the
disadvantages is the inability to achieve metallic or pearlescent effects. In-mould
films are superior for high weathering resistance and apart from the metallic effects,
complex, multicolour and high creative photographic quality graphics decoration is
achievable as opposed to GIPT. Many decoration applications are however not that
demanding and it should be noted that in-mould films are not applicable for very large
and complex surfaces [13], [101]. “Orange peel” has been identified not to be a
problem for GIPT surface finishes [56] and the ambiguous definition of “Class A
Finish” term [46] should also be taken into consideration.
GIPT is an emerging IMD process technology that is actually a combination of
technologies and equipment owned by other companies and therefore comprises the
knowledge on how to combine these technologies in a single process for painting
plastics that would be beneficial in terms of costs and environmental issues, highly
considered in the car manufacturing industries.
The market for unpainted through-colour interior and exterior automotive trim parts
has been estimated as having a market of 80 million m2/year and 5 million m2/year
respectively for year 2005 [102]. It is therefore evident that the automotive market is
significant for GIPT applications. The market share for GIPT applications respectfully
to other IMD techniques will depend on factors such as part definition in terms of
size, surface complexity, decorative effect, required performance and production
costs. Figure 21 illustrates the combined effect of the previously referred factors in
choosing the most appropriate IMD technologie for the automotive manufacturing
industries.
53
Figure 21 Suggested thermoplastic IMD selection process for the automotive
manufacturing industry (amended from Love, J. C. [41])
54
Chapter 7 Research Methodology
CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As discussed in previous chapters, the production of a low cost weatherable
thermoplastic system that does not require further painting and is suitable for the
decoration of complex surfaces, has been identified as an engineering business
problem in the automotive manufacturing industry.
The trend towards product personalisation is spreading to many industries [85] and
entails the production of more versions and smaller volumes of each design. This
switch in produced volume poses reconsideration of manufacturing strategies,
including material selection so as for the production costs to be reduced.
In order for the GIPT technique to be of any interest to industry and a viable solution
to reduce the number of paint shops with associated costs and environmental
implications, it is essential to be financially beneficial compared to them as well as to
off-line painting. It should also be beneficial compared to the other alternative
techniques such as the single injection through colour and in-mould film decoration. It
has been mentioned in the literature review section that the selection of the most
appropriate method depends on the part definition, its size, complexity of surfaces to
be decorated and of course expected performance during handling.
The in-mould film decoration is restricted when the part to be decorated exhibits high
surface complexity and therefore it is not considered to be an acceptable
manufacturing solution for such components. For such parts and apart from the
recycling potential inherent in combination with the need to meet environmental
55
recycling legislation and targets, the financial benefit of using the GIPT technique
compared to single injection components with painted appearance throughout their
thickness, is highly sensitive to skin : core material ratio. This is more obvious
considering the high cost of painted and through colour weatherable polymeric
materials [13], [75] that would provide the expected appearance parameters
achievable from liquid based paints.
The price differentiation between skin and core materials would therefore pose the
skin : core ratio as an important factor, determinant of GIPT’s cost effectiveness.
GIPT’s financial viability over the alternative in mould decoration technologies lies
strongly in the minimisation of the skin layer thickness with no core breaking through
the outer surface. The use of recycled material as core for the GIPT in-mould
decorated component is highly considered to be a basis for designing a low production
cost thermoplastic material component. This is a major benefit of the GIPT technique
and it could also aid the growth of co-injection technologies.
One of the basic advantages of the co-injection moulding process, the technique in
which GIPT is based on, is the ability to obtain unique properties by the combination
of two different property polymers that would not be possible in ordinary injection
moulding. Such thermoplastic material based components would fit for more
sophisticated applications as discussed in the literature review section. Co-injection
technologies and therefore GIPT offer an additional commercial competitive
advantage considering the growing importance of added value manufacturing [3].
56
Recycled material however might not always be considered for use as an injection
moulded component’s core because of overall part’s mechanical property
specifications. Based on the choice of the core material that would provide the part
with desired properties, the price differentiation would decrease and the overall
component’s cost would be highly affected by the skin to core ratio. The skin to core
ratio is the main factor of interest in this research as it is a strong function of a GIPT
in-mould decorated part’s production cost. For a cheap material used as core and a
relatively expensive weatherable colour through skin, able to provide an acceptable
decorative effect and endurance, the overall component’s cost decreases with skin to
core ratio.
However, it would not be appropriate to consider minimisation of costs through the
minimisation of skin to core ratio without considering the long term properties of the
plastic materials comprising the multi-material component. This is important,
especially if the later is intended or expected to perform under stress conditions. The
decorative coating is expected to provide a suitable and predefined endurance under
intended use environmental conditions like temperature or periodically applied
stresses, but significant stress forces can also be produced during the component’s
processing stage.
Adhesion between the core and coating material is usually a prerequisite for the part’s
structural integrity besides the long term lasting of the decorative effect [63].
Adhesion, as discussed in the literature review, can be achieved by the use of
compatible materials or the use of compatibilisers. The use of compatibilisers is
expected to raise the cost of a GIPT produced thermoplastic component and in terms
57
of low production costs it would be preferable to be avoided. On the other hand, valid
coating and core material combination data from material compatibility tables in
terms of expected adherence under typical injection moulding conditions are
unreliable. Tables such the material compatibility Table 3 of the literature review are
often incomplete, not including all grades of available thermoplastic materials and in
some cases they provide contradictory information [15], [70], [71], [72]. For the
previously stated reasons, the experimental route is considered to be the most
appropriate method for the examination of compatibility levels. Processing conditions
affect the adhesion between chosen materials as well as the strength of the bond
which is also a function of their grades.
Encapsulation has been considered as a viable solution for cases in which the chosen
materials do not exhibit natural adherence under injection moulding processing
conditions. For the GIPT technique, encapsulation may result in significant cost
savings for produced components. Paint coating would completely surround the core
material for the production of a part that is acceptable from the appearance point of
view and is not expected to operate under severe conditions of stress. However,
stresses exerted during the GIPT process such as the de-moulding phase can cause
damage to parts with core encapsulated by incompatible skin material and the safe
removal of the part from the mould is not always possible. In such cases, the damages
are expected to exacerbate with the component’s aging. Experiments have shown that
some parts can be safely removed without damage [75]. Under this perspective and
considering the impact of processing conditions in skin and core inter-diffusion rates,
the thickness of the skin layer is also a considerable factor in adhesion strength and
therefore in final component’s properties. The thickness of the skin layer affects
58
adhesion because of increased or decreased bonding times available [3], [19]. Thicker
skin layers exhibit slower cooling rate interface and the bonding time is therefore
increased.
For the purposes of this research, adhesion will be examined under processing
conditions for core material completely encapsulated by the chosen skin materials
along with the potential effect of skin material thickness in adhesion. The use of
compatibilisers will not be considered and for selected skin and core material
combinations, the findings are going to be compared against data from available
material compatibility tables.
In relation to the fountain flow model discussed in the literature review section and
interaction of skin and core material viscosities, substantial difference between them
has been identified to reduce the proportion of core material that can be encapsulated
without core breaking through [15]. Respectfully to these results and for experiments
conducted with GIPT recommended paint coatings, it has been suggested that
increased delay time, reduction of injection speed, core material temperature
reduction and skin material temperature increase should result in increased amount of
core material incorporated into the final component [75]. All findings however are
based on simple mould geometries and the need to investigate more complex
geometries and associated mould filling patterns has been acknowledged [3], [15],
[16]. Rheology and processing parameters’ effects are crucial and poorly understood
respectfully to mould filling patterns and layer distribution [3], [13].
59
A business case for GIPT would ideally feature a relatively complex mould geometry
as it is usually the case with automotive industry parts, able to encapsulate maximum
amounts of cheaper core materials under expensive coating whilst expecting most
uniform layer distribution and adhesion levels achievable between selected materials.
The later is desirable regardless of the encapsulation option. A non uniform
distribution of skin and core material layers could entail implications on the part’s
overall combined uniform mechanical properties. For the later, the skin material
thickness could be a critical factor. Combined mechanical properties consistency is
mostly a business case for co-injection moulding. Under this perspective, non uniform
distributions of material layers in GIPT are to some point tolerable, provided that
there is no visible outer surface defect.
As already discussed and apart from material selections, processing conditions would
affect the final product. Considering GIPT’s mechanism and its business aspect
related objectives, temperature is the common factor parameter affecting all these
objectives in a different way. Core breaking through is a matter of distribution and
distribution, as affected by viscosity, is dependant on temperature. Distribution is also
affected by the mould’s geometry and its filling pattern. Adhesion is the result of the
core and skin material interface melt mixing reaction kinetics. For the reaction to take
place spontaneously, the free Gibbs reaction energy needs to have a negative value
[66], [67], [68]. However the Gibbs energy reaction is a function of temperature [68]
and therefore different temperature settings might be able to trigger a reaction
between materials. Temperature therefore might affect adhesion directly besides the
indirect effect through achieved skin layer thickness. However, it should be noted that
the effects of processing conditions in skin and core inter-diffusion rates and therefore
60
adhesion are complicated and not well understood [3], [19]. Temperature settings
should be able to provide the optimum balance between previously referred objectives
so as for the final product to be successful or acceptable.
For practical reasons and in order to minimise the number of required experiments as
it will be discussed later in this chapter, temperature is going to be the only parameter
under investigation respectfully to the previously referred GIPT business case
objectives. Other processing parameters such as injection speed that also affect the
fine balance between these objectives, are not going to be investigated because of the
increased complexity as a result of interrelationships with temperature and viscosity.
Respectfully to a co-injection moulded part’s quality, mould filling dynamics and
geometry might disable a wider range of injection speeds exploration. These
interactions will be discussed further in the experimental results discussion chapter. A
single parameter investigation, temperature in this case, can also reveal significant
trends as it will be discussed later in this chapter.
It should be noted that the materials’ temperature profile is a very powerful processing
parameter as it controls the production rate besides the melt quality of injection
moulding machines. For this reason, temperature control receives a great deal of
attention from the injection moulding machinery manufacturers [103]. Thermocouple
positioning in the barrels should maintain a good control of the temperature and hence
it is fitted approximately half way in the barrel wall [103]. Temperature of melts,
apart from suggested implications to skin : core material ratio and therefore the
economics of GIPT technique, is also an overall cost factor in injection moulding
process. For 30 0C increase, the power consumption increases per 0.20 KW [103]. It
61
should be noted however that at lower temperatures, materials are more viscous and
therefore the screw is required to consume more energy in order to process these
materials.
Finally, in order to demonstrate the financial benefits and economics of the GIPT
technique through the skin : core distribution ratio respectfully to through colour
single injection mouldings, a cost analysis will be conducted in order to determine and
examine how value can be created as well as significant cost savings can be achieved.
For the purposes of the cost analysis performed in this research, it was supposed that
injection moulding machines, co-injection as well as single injection, would need to
be purchased for final component costs determination and comparisons. The high
capital cost of co-injection machines, usually around 40% more expensive than an
ordinary single injection moulding machine, has been identified as a limiting factor in
the commercial uptake of co-injection, additionally to the specialised knowledge
required [3], [33]. Consequently these two factors are also expected to affect the
extent of GIPT industrial applications. Further assumptions will be discussed in more
detail in the cost analysis section.
7.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The main research objectives were to:-
 Perform representative co-injection moulding tests on chosen material systems
and for a proposed component with a relatively complex surface, in order to
62
determine the effect of skin material processing temperature on the maximum core
material that can be completely encapsulated without core break through;
 Examine the limitations posed by the given component’s geometry on uniform
distribution of skin material that surrounds the core;
 Examine the presence or not of any adhesion between skin and core on some test
samples, compare results with data from available material compatibility tables
and evaluate the skin thickness minimisation and possibly other processing
conditions on achieved adhesion levels;
 To establish the costs of the GIPT technique and comprehend the parameters,
including the skin : core distribution ratio, that have the most impact on the
techniques financial viability over the alternative of through colour mouldings
based on 100% paint like polymers for the given component.
Results and conclusions on the above set of this research’s objectives should
collectively be able to provide useful generalised indications to draw conclusions on
the future prospects of GIPT’s commercial uptake and applications in industry. As
previously discussed, machinery costs and inherent process complexity could be
limiting factors.
It should be noted that the component is considered to have relatively complex shape
that would make the in-mould film decoration technique inapplicable and that
examination of the component’s properties in terms of skin distribution around core as
well as mechanisms do not aim to be exhaustive, as these would by necessity be
performed in association with potential customers before production. Significantly
reduced skin thickness might at a point reduce the component’s mechanical properties
63
to that of the skin’s in cases where the combined properties of the chosen materials for
the multi-material component are important, additionally to a lasting decorating
effect. For such critical specifications, combined properties and decorative effect,
simulated end user tests are performed to guarantee performance and because of their
expense, they are performed when it is absolutely necessary [8].
7.2 INJECTION MOULDING EXPERIMENTS DESIGN
If it is decided to investigate the effect of processing conditions’ interval changes on
an injection moulded component’s properties, it is generally suggested to conduct
experiments on a restricted number of variables for the in depth investigation after
preliminary tests [8].
The aim of the preliminary tests is to set and examine the interaction of the correct
pressure, time and rate requirements for successful mouldings as well as to perform
any final adjustments, thus trimming the process. These details can be critical for the
injection moulding process efficiency and thus special attention should be given to
them. Considering that no two machines are exactly alike in terms of temperature and
pressure regulations as well as heat transfer issues and that a mould cannot be taken
from one machine and perform in another for the exact same operating conditions, the
machine operator should be prepared for an experimental approach to optimise
conditions. Preliminary tests are therefore necessary in order for the best results and
optimum processing conditions to be obtained. Material suppliers processing
recommendations as well as data from other machines should be used as starting
conditions in order to detect the correct ones on the utilised machine. The process
64
variables, some of which have been discussed during the literature review section, are
all dependent on each other. For larger machines, the time interval to react is longer
[104] and therefore the adjustments made to the machine should be gentler. This
underlines the contribution of the operator’s ability to recognise the conditions under
which correct quality mouldings can be achieved and maintained for the injection
moulding process’ success.
7.2.1 EXPERIMENTATION RESTRICTIONS
As already stated, processing conditions affect the properties of the injection
mouldings. If the aim of the experiments was to investigate all machine settings
influential to the moulded part properties, it would take a very large number of
experiments. For example, to investigate 5 processing parameters at three levels, low,
medium, high, 35 = 243 experiments would have to be performed.
Bown and Robinson [105] suggest as an optimum approach to this problem, the
minimisation and random choice of processing variables investigated as in this way,
significant trends can be identified. Some process variables might be omitted from
investigation because of new injection moulding machine specifications. For example,
injection pressure can be omitted because new machines are fitted with two stage
pressure systems.
For the purposes of this research, skin material melt temperature will be the only
processing parameter under investigation and will be evaluated at three different
levels: low, medium and high.
65
The determination of low, medium and high values for the investigation of a certain
processing parameter’s effect on final component’s properties is based on experience
gained through the preliminary experiments as well as on machine control settings
and material data provided by manufacturers.
The in depth investigation of a certain parameter however might provide the
researcher with significant indications that some other variables kept constant during
experimentation should also be investigated in greater depth for the proper
comprehension of the initial examined variable’s impact on the moulded part’s
quality. Again, combined variables but with number kept to a minimum can reveal
significant trends [8], [103]. Once part’s properties in the moulding have been
specified, it should be possible to reproduce them, provided that injection moulding
machine performance is consistent. Based on this assumption, if a selection of
injection moulding machine settings (back pressure, injection speed, etc) is to be held
strictly constant, then a certain aspect of the mouldings’ quality produced by the
machine will be dependent on the processing parameter under investigation.
7.2.2 PROCESS FUNCTIONS CONTROLLED
The controlling functions carried out by the moulding process controllers are the back
pressure during plasticizing, the injection speed, mould packing and hold pressure.
Back pressure control ensures constant back pressure in one or multiple stages. A
steadily increasing back pressure during screw back withdrawal, compensating for the
shortening of its length, is very useful for the majority of thermoplastic materials
66
processing. Decreasing back pressure during screw back is applied when processing
thermally unstable materials such as UPVC [103].
Injection speed control is important for the repeatability of material shots into the
mould as well as troubleshooting mould filling problems. The injection speed
controllers are even more important for cases where temperature difference between
melt and tool are large. The later is very common with most tools used commercially.
Injection speeds determine the contact time between materials and therefore the
amounts of heat transferred at the interface.
Mould packing and hold pressure is essential for the post mould filling stage. During
the mould filling stage, associated pressures are high and are expected to compensate
for any shrinkage during cooling. The proceeding packing stage is associated with
relatively low pressures maintenance for a certain period of time until the gate freezes.
All previously referred functions are essential for the injection moulding machine
operation and can be controlled with both open and closed loop modes. It should be
noted that in most modern machines there are additional controllers that make the
injection moulding process more flexible and efficient in use.
67
Chapter 8 Experiments and Results
CHAPTER 8 EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
Round dish (centre gated) samples were moulded in a Battenfeld GmbH BM-
T1100/2  300 (1995 model) simultaneous co-injection moulding machine. All
hydroscopic materials used for the experiments were dried in a Maguire Low Pressure
Dryer (maximum drying temperature 850C and 47 Kg/hr throughput) at temperatures
and time frames specified by manufacturer provided data sheets in order for any
property alterations to be avoided. Pictures of the equipment used in the experiments,
including the mould can be found in Appendix 1.
Plastic materials with even small amounts of moisture exhibit altered properties such
as ease of flow, density and strength with entailed implications on processing
conditions during injection moulding and finished part’s quality [8]. Plastics with
hydrophilic groups in their molecular structure such as carbonyls (>C=O) are more
prone to moisture absorption and can result in splash marks [104] which are liquid
droplets in streaky patterns formed by the condensed vapours of water in the
advancing front of the plastic melt entering the mould. Acceptable levels of moisture
for some plastic materials are less than 0.1 % [8], [104] but for others such as ABS the
moisture levels must be zero [104].
Before each set of co-injection experiment sample moulding on chosen material
systems, the mould was visually inspected and wiped with a piece of cloth to ensure
that the surfaces were clean. This is very important considering that the mould acts as
a heat exchanger and any deposits in the surface can reduce the heat transfer capacity
of these surfaces. Dust and dirt are cumulative effects and may well account for the
68
fact that after an extended period of time with poor mould care and maintenance, the
mould will rarely work at previously set conditions [104].
The materials used in the experiments were:-
 ABS
 PP with 30% long glass fibre
 PP with 30% glass fibre
 LDPE
The material selection was based on their availability, their commercial value and
applications. Even though none of these materials is appropriate for GIPT coating
applications, it is expected that weatherable through colour polymers based on the
same resin thermoplastic systems as the above and with similar properties (special
pigments used to provide the colour all the way through the moulds might result in
slightly altered properties) are expected to perform in a similar way. Further
information on the materials used can be found in Appendix 2.
In all experiments, ABS was used as the core material with small amounts of
masterbatch yellow colour concentrate added, in order for the core material layer to be
more distinct in sample intersections and for core break through sections to be easier
to detect.
The aim of the experiments was to examine the effect of injected skin material melt
temperature on the maximum core that can be completely encapsulated without any
evidence of core material breaking through the skin material layer. For the purposes
of this research, skin material melt temperature was examined at three different levels;
69
low, medium and high with the rest of the injection moulding processing parameters
kept constant throughout all sets of experiments.
All experimental common injection moulding processing parameters were balanced
and kept constant at values that ensured good mould filling. Settings were based on
previous experience with the specific tool used. The co-injection machine used,
features accurate control systems and there was no evidence during sample production
cycle times that processing parameter settings were altered for reasons such as voltage
variation. Even minor alterations of temperatures during moulding would result in
sharp changes of materials’ viscosities with entailed implications on the multi-
material mouldings’ quality. Similarly, any fluctuations in the back pressure during
the plasticising phase would affect the materials’ residence time in the barrels and
therefore the temperature homogeneity, as well as shot weights and mould filling
characteristics. It has been assumed that the machine settings were held strictly
constant and therefore that the mouldings produced would also be constant. Common
moulding conditions for all experiments are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 Common moulding conditions for all experiments
Back Pressure 10 Bar

Cooling Time 60 sec
Delay (ABS) 0.1 sec
Core Skin
Injection Speed
250 mm/sec 230 mm/sec
Every set of experiments featured a specific skin and core material combination and
for every level of skin material melt temperature under investigation, experiments
70
were initiated with a 66:34 skin to core ratio and the skin material screw advancement
metering was reduced in favour of the core material’s until the production of a sample
with a visible section of core breaking through the coating. At lower skin to core
ratios up until core breaking through effect, the core material metering was advanced
by 1 mm. Experiments were conducted from lower to higher level of skin material
melt temperatures in order to have the machine settle down time reduced before
taking samples. Even in small machines, the melt temperature may not equilibrate for
20 min when barrel temperature settings have been changed [8]. This “quick and
dirty” experimental approach was considered not to have an effect on the randomness
of the experiments. Considering the increased machine settle down time, this
approach would have been preferred if experiments were to be conducted in industrial
production line moulding machines. All temperature settings for materials were within
the processing intervals specified by manufacturer provided data sheets and
temperature differences between skin and core were no more than 350C so as to avoid
having skin material processing temperatures in the extremities of the manufacturer
defined temperature processing intervals. This maximum temperature difference
would also enable the effect of skin material temperature’s thorough investigation
whilst avoiding significantly increased amounts of heat transferred between materials.
Similar processing temperatures for skin and core materials are recommended since
the materials are processed simultaneously [3].
The barrels were adequately cleaned according to common injection moulding
practices before a different skin material was used in the experiments. Based on
experience with the particular machine and the mould, three mouldings were
discarded before proper samples were to be taken.
71
8.1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the experimental samples produced using LDPE as skin material are
listed in Table 5, Table 6 lists the results with PP glass skin material samples and
Tables 7 list results with PP long grained as skin material.
Table 5 Experimental results for samples with ABS core (T=2350C) and LDPE
Sample Skin Metering Core Metering Skin Melt Core Skin : Core
Reference (mm) (mm) Temperature Breaking
Through
R-1.3 54 28 No 1.928
R-1.2 50 32 No 1.562
R-7.4 47 35 No 1.343
R-1.1 46 36 T =2000C No 1.278
R-7.1 45 37 No 1.216
R-4.1 44 38 Yes 1.158
R-1.6 54 28 No 1.928
R-1.5 50 32 No 1.562
R-7.5 47 35 No 1.343
0
R-1.4 46 36 T =220 C No 1.278
R-7.2 45 37 No 1.216
R-4.2 44 38 Yes 1.158
R-1.9 54 28 No 1.928
R-1.8 50 32 No 1.562
R-7.6 47 35 No 1.343
0
R-1.7 46 36 T =240 C No 1.278
R-7.3 45 37 No 1.216
R-4.3 44 38 Yes 1.158
72
Table 6 Experimental results for samples with ABS core (T=2350C) and PP with 30%
glass fibre
Through
R-3.3 54 28 No 1.928
R-3.2 50 32 No 1.562
R-3.1 46 36 No 1.278
R-6.1 44 38 T =2000C No 1.159
R-6.7 43 39 No 1.102
R-6.2 42 40 Yes 1.050
R-3.6 54 28 No 1.928
R-3.5 50 32 No 1.562
R-3.4 46 36 T =2200C No 1.278
R-6.8 43 39 No 1.102
R-6.5 42 40 Yes 1.050
R-3.9 54 28 No 1.928
R-3.8 50 32 No 1.562
R-3.7 46 36 T =2400C No 1.278
R-6.9 43 39 No 1.102
R-6.6 42 40 Yes 1.050
73
Table 7 Experimental results for samples with ABS core (T=2350C) and PP with 30%
long glass fibre
Through
R-2.3 54 28 No 1.928
R-2.2 50 32 No 1.562
R-2.1 46 36 No 1.278
R-5.1 44 38 T =2000C No 1.158
R-5.2 42 40 No 1.050
R-5.3 40 42 No 0.952
R-5.7 39 43 No 0.907
R-5.4 38 44 Yes 0.864
R-2.6 54 28 No 1.928
R-2.5 50 32 No 1.562
0
R-2.4 46 36 T =220 C No 1.278
R-5.8 39 43 No 0.907
R-5.5 38 44 Yes 0.864
R-2.9 54 28 No 1.928
R-2.8 50 32 No 1.562
R-2.7 46 36 T =2400C No 1.278
R-8.0 39 43 No 0.907
R-5.6 38 44 Yes 0.864
74
Chapter 9 Discussion of Results
CHAPTER 9 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
As discussed in the previous chapter, small amounts of masterbatch yellow colour
concentrate were added to core material ABS in order for core break through sections
to be easier to detect. Considering however core breaking through as a function of the
materials’ distribution in layers, intersections were necessary to accurately determine
which samples exhibited core breaking through the skin material’s outer surface
regions. Given the yellow pigmented ABS core and the skin material selections with
LDPE being transparent and PP with two different quality glass fibres reinforcement,
thinner skin material layers would scatter light and create a blurry visual effect
especially at non uniform layer distribution regions and some eye view point angles.
In such cases, core break through sections would be more difficult to detect.
Non uniform distribution of skin and core material layer does not necessarily entail
core breaking through the produced part’s surface, but in such cases it is a useful
indication on a possible core break through at a further reduction of the skin material
shot volume respectfully to the core material. Provided that there is no visible surface
defect, non uniform distributions are to some point tolerable in GIPT.
Some samples, like the PP long skin in all temperatures, were easy to inspect and
visually detect core break through sections. However, intersections were performed in
all samples to validate or investigate indications of possible core break through
sections. Figure 22 illustrates a core break through section in a PP long skin
(T=2200C, sample reference R-5.5) sample.
75
Figure 22 Core break through section in a PP long skin sample (skin material melt
temperature T=2200C - sample reference R-5.5)
Samples were cut all the way through the skin-core sandwich structure using a
bandsaw. Three intersections were performed, one approximately in the middle of the
sample and one in every remaining half, parallel to the middle intersection. Apart
from the core break through detection, these intersections would enable a thorough
investigation of the layer distribution uniformity as well as the whole process’
stability.
It should be noted that for every injection moulding setting (common moulding
settings as well as skin and core melt temperatures and shot volumes) four mouldings
were produced to evaluate the process’ stability and to have a more accurate cycle
time estimation as it will be discussed later in Chapter 10. Visual as well as interior
material layer distribution inspection between such samples, showed no actual
76
differences and therefore the process’ stability is unquestionable with no alterations of
the common injection moulding settings used in all experiments. Sample reference
tags used in experimental result Tables 5, 6 and 7, refer to a four moulded “dish”
samples subcategory with identical processing parameters. For example, all four
LDPE moulded reference samples R-4.3, exhibited core breaking through at
approximately the same surface regions. Similarly, none of the four LDPE moulded
reference samples R-7.3 exhibited core break through.
9.1 THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE
The primary objective of this research was to determine the effect of skin material
temperature on the maximum core material ABS encapsulated in a relatively complex
shape moulded part, the “dish” component in particular. The production of a distinct
core-skin “sandwich” structure has been discussed in the literature review section and
is based on the injection of a skin material followed by a slightly higher viscosity core
material, pushing skin ahead into the mould cavity. Skin material is injected first and
upon injection of core, both materials flow into the mould cavity simultaneously.
In order for the core to remain encapsulated, the skin and core materials’ viscosities
need to be ideally similar or well matched [3], [15], [16]. Additionally, since the
materials are processed simultaneously, it has been suggested that their melt
temperatures should not be significantly different [3]. Based on these suggestions, the
mechanism of the distinct core-skin “sandwich” structure and considering that
thermoplastic material melts belong to the generic family of pseudoplastic fluids with
viscosity decreasing with temperature and shear rates increase [14], it has been
77
suggested that core material temperature reduction and skin material temperature
increase would result in greater amounts of core encapsulation [75]. Considering the
temperature and viscosity correlation and respectfully to Somnuck and Smith related
research, maximum core encapsulation is achievable at skin to core viscosity ratios
between 0.8 and 1.8 [15], [16].
In the experiments conducted for the purposes of this research, core material
temperature was kept constant at 2350C and skin melt temperatures varied at
temperatures of 2000C, 2200C and 2400C with great differences respectfully to the
core material temperature avoided. It is evident from the contents of the experimental
result Tables 5, 6 and 7 that for all material combinations, skin material temperature
did not have an effect on the maximum core encapsulated in the “dish” tool. For all
skin materials and their melt temperatures, core break through occurred at the exact
same skin and core material shot volumes. Considering the suggestions of previously
referred research and the reasonable assumption that since some processing conditions
of moulding are kept constant, then a certain aspect of the moulding, core breaking
through in this case, would be dependent on the processing parameter under
investigation which is temperature, the results are at a first look unexpected. Material
viscosities react quite sharply to small changes at their moulding temperatures and
this can be amplified at high shear rates [104]. High shear rates are often the case in
injection moulding [3] and they are directly correlated to injection speeds used (shear
rate increases approximately proportionally with injection speed). The temperature
combinations used in the experiments should have been able to reveal a certain trend
on the maximum core that can be completely encapsulated with temperature.
78
Unfortunately, the grades and further information on materials used by the
manufacturers were not available. Given this information, the viscosities of materials
as a function of temperature and shear rates would be obtainable from Moldflow
software’s built in database as they may vary between grades and manufacturers.
However, and for phenomenological purposes, it would be interesting to interpret the
results based on viscosity curves against temperature and shear rate of polypropylene
as illustrated in Figure 23.
Figure 23 Effect of temperature on viscosity of polypropylene [3]
It can be seen from Figure 23 that for higher injection rates, the viscosity differences
of PP as a result of different temperatures are reduced. For example, the viscosity
difference between temperatures 2100C and 2200C is much smaller at 10000 1/s shear
rate than at shear rates of 100 1/s and at the particular shear rates, this viscosity
difference is much smaller than between 2200C and 2400C.
79
It can therefore only be assumed that for all the skin materials used and their injection
speed (230 mm/sec for all skin materials), the viscosities exhibited minor differences
between the experimental processing temperatures in a similar way to propylene for
injection speeds towards the 104 shear rate vicinity. Respectfully to Smith and
Somnuck research [15], [16], all resultant skin to core viscosity ratios with common
injection speeds and core material ABS melt temperature could have been within an
analogous viscosity ratio margin assuming that maximum core encapsulation has been
achieved for the particular mould.
However it is interesting to notice from experimental result Tables 5, 6 and 7 that
maximum core ABS safely encapsulated with no evidence of core breaking through is
different for every skin material and under the processing conditions used. Maximum
core ABS encapsulated is 52.44 % of total shot volume for PP long and 47.56% and
45.12% for PP glass and LDPE skin materials respectively. This can only be
interpreted through apparently different skin to core viscosity ratios between material
combinations which however did not have an impact on maximum core encapsulated
as a result of different skin material melt temperatures.
The results of this research on the impact of temperature however could be indicative
that there can be no absolute viscosity ratio margins for material combinations that
would result in maximum core material encapsulation irrespectively to the mould’s
geometry. Somnuck and Smith have come to the results concerning viscosity ratio
margins by using flat square and round plaques [15], [16] but the need for further
investigation on the implications of this respectfully to more complex geometries has
been acknowledged in the assorted literature [3], [15], [16], [41]. The mould used in
80
this research was considered to have a relatively complex geometry and the injection
speed selections for the experiments were based on preliminary experiments and
previous experience with the particular mould. Injection speeds were carefully
selected for the particular mould’s filling dynamics and the skin melt temperatures
were considerably and reasonably different with each other and with the core ABS
melt temperature. The later was very important considering the primary objective of
this research and the suggestions to keep the skin and core material temperatures
similar since they are processed simultaneously [3].
Nevertheless, no trend concerning a skin material temperature on maximum core
encapsulated was witnessed. However, it can be suggested that since the process
parameters were well balanced and stable with no indications on the opposite,
temperature may not always be a parameter that would affect the maximum core that
can be encapsulated in a mould. This could be generalised for complex mould
geometries posing restrictions on mould filling dynamics and therefore injection
speeds. As also illustrated in Figure 23, even minor or considerable alterations of
injection speeds but within tolerable limits of the particular experimental mould’s
filling dynamics, might still not significantly alter the processed material’s viscosity
for a given temperature respectfully to another. Similarly, significantly different
temperatures as opposed to the ones selected for the particular experiments at the
given injection speed margins, could result in inappropriate heat amounts transferred
between the layers and have for example incoming core material sweeping skin
already settled and cooling in the mould cavity walls. This approach as a possible
adjusting alternative to match skin material’s viscosity with core’s and have
maximum amount of the later encapsulated, may also prove to be an inappropriate. At
81
this point it should be noted that Smith and Somnuck’s research suggest optimum
core distributions for identical skin and core material viscosities [15], [16] while the
“sandwich structure” mechanism suggests skin to have a slightly lower viscosity than
core.
The possible implications of unbalanced amounts of heat transferred between material
layers into the mould if greater temperature differences had been used, may or may
not have resulted in core break through sections. While viscosities and injection
speeds refer to rheology characteristics temperature, apart from the impact on
viscosity and therefore rheology, refers to the heat transfer characteristics of the
materials’ interface.
At this point it should be reminded that the combined scope of the experimental
section of this research respectfully to a GIPT business case, was to examine the
effect of skin material melt temperature on the maximum core ABS that can be
encapsulated in a relatively complex mould whilst expecting the most uniform layer
distribution achievement and maximum adherence levels with no compatibiliser use
for materials of questionable compatibility. Significantly different skin material melt
temperatures than the ones selected may have resulted in possibly higher amounts of
core material encapsulation, however due to the interconnection with the rest two
experimental related objectives, unacceptable combined quality aspects for the
produced “dish” part were very likely to occur according to the related literature [3],
[15], [16], [41]. The later was very important considering that suggestions are based
on flat and of simple geometry tools while this research utilised a relatively complex
geometry mould.
82
It should be noted that material selections are primarily based on their properties, cost
and decorative effect for the GIPT technique and not on their viscosity ranges.
Therefore it is possible for a range of material combinations that temperature and/or
injection speeds may not be adjustable to ensure maximum and safe core material
encapsulation because of the mould’s geometry as it is the case for the relatively
complex geometry “dish” tool used in this research. Maximum ABS core
encapsulation was achieved using PP long as skin material and temperature did not
have an effect on this. Small variations in injection speeds would result in different
viscosities but at given temperatures and injection speeds, shear rates may have varied
significantly between regions of the mould and that is because of the mould’s filling
dynamics. This could complicate the “sandwich structure” formation process
significantly for some material combinations and that is the reason why injection
speed variations should be avoided in complex mould geometries as an approach to
increase the amounts of core encapsulated. Under this perspective and for some
complex geometries it can be assumed that temperature offers higher degrees of
freedom in achieving maximum core encapsulation and it should be explored first.
This of course should be validated after preliminary experiments or experience with
the mould to exclude further injection speeds exploration as it was the case for the
mould used in these experiments.
A typical example to illustrate the possible implications of even small injection speed
variations would feature PC and PMMA as skin and core materials. This combination
of materials is also interesting for future automotive glazing applications [106]. Figure
24 illustrates the viscosities of PC and PMMA against shear rates for a 200C
temperature difference between materials.
83
Figure 24 Viscosity versus shear rate for PMMA and PC [3]
Figure 24 illustrates that increased shear rate results in decreased viscosity but
different materials respond differently to changes. If mould filling dynamics
suggested a tolerance range of injection speeds for a range of selected materials that
would result in shear rates within the vicinity of 500 1/s to 900 1/s, then any
alterations towards the upper bound of that interval could result in regions with shear
rates higher of 1000 1/s for PC and PPMA. As illustrated in Figure 24, in these shear
rate regions PC has higher viscosity than PMMA as opposed to regions with shear
rates below 1000 1/s. This would possibly result in visible defects if PMMA was the
core material considering that for optimum distribution between the materials
interface, core must have a higher viscosity than the skin material. The different
behaviour in shear rates impact becomes more important for post industrial plastic
recycled materials usage considering their processing history that would affect
apparent viscosity [3].
84
Respectfully to the scope of this research regarding the effect of skin material melt
temperature on the maximum core ABS that can be encapsulated in a relatively
complex mould, the results have been inconclusive. A trend could have been
witnessed if material injection speeds were also varied so as to explore the filling
mechanisms in action, but considering the limitations posed and inherent complexity
of the mould filling pattern, temperature’s effect would have best been explored in
geometry tools with physical volume distribution enabling higher amounts of core
material encapsulation. In such geometries a trend could have possibly witnessed even
without any variations in the injection speeds of materials. The implications of
geometry in maximum core encapsulation for the GIPT technique are discussed in the
cost analysis section of this research.
9.2 SKIN AND CORE MATERIAL DISTRIBUTIONS
Significantly different skin material melt temperatures respectfully to core ABS have
been avoided in order to minimise possible anomalies in layer distribution as
discussed previously. However, these temperature differences are considerable and
the skin-core material layer distributions should be able to reveal trends respectfully
to the encapsulation mechanism in co-injection moulding based on material viscosity
correlations. The material layer distribution should also be able to indicate
implications of the mould’s geometry on regions prone to core breaking through at
significantly reduced skin material shot volumes.
Considering the mould’s geometry and gate positioning, similar to Figure 8 (a)
(Chapter 3), the gate should not be a factor affecting a uniform radial distribution
85
towards the moulded part’s perimeter. Under this perspective, any anomaly
differences in layer distributions between reference samples would be a result of
temperature or material shot volume differences.
Given the relationship between temperature and viscosity as discussed earlier,
significantly lower viscosity core material would result in regional skin material layer
penetration as also discussed in the literature review and commonly referred to as
“melt fingering” [3]. Melt fingering at lower skin material shot volumes may well
result in core break through. Intense melt fingering sections were visible in LDPE
skin material samples at temperatures of 2400C and maximum experimental skin shot
volumes (reference samples R-1.9). Reference samples R-1.9 exhibited at least two
such sections as illustrated in Figure 25.
Figure 25 Melt fingering in a LDPE skin sample (reference sample R-1.9)
Melt fingering in the zy plane direction of flow (respectfully to Figure 25) was visible
only in reference samples R-1.9 while the apart from these samples’ sections, skin
86
LDPE appeared to be thick and of relative consistency throughout the mould’s radial
perimeter with no core breaking through as also validated by intersections. Melt
fingering was much less accentuated and therefore less apparent for the same skin
melt temperatures and lower LDPE shot volumes. Melt fingering in the zy plane
direction of flow was not at all apparent for the same skin material and the rest
experimental skin melt temperatures. This is a valid indication that at 2400C and
experimental injection speeds, the LDPE skin viscosity was significantly lower than
of core’s ABS but core breaking through was avoided because of the high skin to core
shot volumetric ratio. For the rest of skin materials used in the experiments, no melt
fingering at the zy plane direction of flow was detectible through visual inspection at
any experimental skin material volumetric shots. However, the intersections should be
able to reveal more information on the viscosity inter-relationships between skin and
core and explain the core breaking through pattern found in samples. Figure 26
illustrates an xz plane middle intersection of a LDPE reference sample R-1.6 (skin
melt temperature 2200C).
Figure 26 Middle “dish” tool intersection (LDPE reference sample R-1.6)
87
In all Figure 26 denoted sections, skin material thickness is higher around gate areas
than the opposites. The sharp deep corner in section 2 is almost fully packed with skin
and the portion of core ABS material seems to increase in that section as skin material
LDPE shot volumes are reduced. The skin material thickness in around gate areas of
Figure 26 denoted sections 1, 2 and 3 does not seem to be dependant on the skin
material melt temperature as in all corresponding temperature samples, skin thickness
differences are not noticeable with naked eye with the exception of the deep sharp
corner of denoted section 2, containing more core material as temperature increases.
Skin thickness in these areas seems to be reduced, not significantly though, as skin
volumetric shots are reduced. Considering the assorted literature [3], [15], [16], [41],
[44] suggesting that skin material thickness around gate area is prone to being thinner
as it is subjected to high shear and re-melting because of the incoming core material
melt, this is an indication of the appropriateness of the injection speeds used in the
experiments respectfully to the particular mould’s filling dynamics. The potentially
beneficial implications of this are explained in the adhesion section. At this point it
should be noted however that this effect of injection speeds would most likely result
in defects for a mould geometry and gate positioning similar to Figure’s 8 (a) at
significantly lower skin material volumetric shots. This is also a good example of
geometry and filling dynamics often posing restrictions in injection speed margins. In
all experiments, the core’s speed was higher than of the skin’s and for the particular
mould this resulted in a thinner skin thickness opposite the gate area in section 1
(respectfully to Figure 26). This area’s skin thickness did not seem to apparently vary
either with temperature or with skin material volumetric shots. Obviously, the shear
stress applied because of the incoming melt’s switch in velocity profiles as a result of
88
the flow direction’s alteration (from x to z respectfully to Figure 26) was
overwhelming.
The fingering effect was present in all temperatures as validated by intersections
across the xy plane, while there were no skin thickness variations in corresponding xz
planes except sections 3 and 4. Skin thickness irregularities in both opposite areas of
section 3 were present in all samples and appeared to be reducing with temperature
and skin volumetric shots. As a result of the lower viscosity of skin, apparent
explanation of the fingering effect, core breaking through was always occurring in
section 4 while the skin thickness was constant in both opposite sites of section 1.
Given the limitations of the experimental approach followed, this could be a valid
indication of the mould’s geometry effect for a range of material viscosities.
It is interesting to notice the interruption of the laminar flow in denoted section 3
resulting into an interfacial instability. The interfacial instability was present in all
temperatures and skin volumetric shots and always in denoted section 3 for all skin
materials. This is probably because of the xz plane flow alteration as a result of the
preceding denoted section’s 2 slope. It should be noted that this intermediate layer’s
thickness seems to be increasing with skin material volumetric shot and decreasing
temperature. The exact mechanism’s interaction with temperature is beyond the scope
of this project as this instability has not been identified to be responsible for core
break through sections in the samples. V. Goodship [5] has studied the interfacial
instabilities and evaluated their potential use for mechanical interlocking achievement
between incompatible materials in GIPT. Their adhesion related effect in this
project’s experiments will be evaluated in the corresponding section. However it is
89
interesting to notice that some samples did not exhibit interfacial instabilities in the
opposite mirror side of the Figure’s 26 illustrated intersection. This could be an
indication of a possible gravitational forces effect, assuming that intersections in those
samples were performed approximately in parallel to the gravity vector’s direction.
PP glass skin material moulding had similar distributions as with LDPE described
previously. For both skin materials, core breaking through was occurring only in the
region of section 4 respectfully to Figure 26. PP long however showed a completely
different skin layer distribution. Skin thickness irregularities of section’s 3 opposite
sides were much less accentuated and at around gate areas, skin thickness differences
respectfully to opposite sides were also minimised compared to results with skin
materials samples LDPE and PP glass at corresponding temperatures and skin
material volumetric shots. Overall, no evidence of fingering effect was witnessed and
the distribution of layers was the most uniform in all temperatures and skin volumetric
shots compared to the rest skin material samples. The interfacial instability of section
3 was also present in all samples but also significantly less accentuated. Considering
that for PP long skin material samples and injection moulding conditions used, the
viscosity interrelationships were apparently the most optimal as a result of the most
uniform distributions, it can be assumed that the mould geometry can severely impact
on distribution. This is more heavily biased considering that interfacial instabilities
were also present despite the most uniform conditions and always towards the flow
direction slope of section 3. In PP long skin material samples core breaking through
was occurring in all opposite gate areas sites of sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. Core break
through was also witnessed in gate area side of section 3 as a result of the uniform
distribution of the thinnest achievable average layer for skin material PP long and the
90
particular mould. Skin layer thickness of gate area side of section 1 was always higher
than average and no sample exhibited core break through in that section. Obviously
the core material’s selected injection speed for the particular material combination and
all temperatures still enabled a non thinner skin layer distribution at around gate area
sides respectfully to the average achievable. This effect could have been favourable in
avoiding de-moulding damages to component if achieved adhesion levels between
materials were poor. For the later case, the injections speed used, relatively high for
the creation of the interfacial stability [5], could have also been beneficial as it will be
discussed in the following paragraph.
9.3 ADHESION
The de-moulding phase can result in significant forces that could potentially damage
the mould and this is very important in co-injection mouldings where skin and core
material adhesion is poor. Any forces exerted should be transferred throughout the
component in order for its structural coherency to be maintained. These forces depend
upon geometry and the moulded part’s mass [107]. The release forces, loosening and
pushing which for the particular mould were exerted in the around gate area surfaces,
are more responsible for de-moulding damages than the opening forces [107]. Under
this perspective, the injection speeds used in the experiments were beneficial since the
increased skin material thickness in around gate areas could have resulted into
increased adhesion levels as a result of the increased bonding time between the
materials’ interface for the temperature margins used. None of the experimental
samples exhibited any damage as a result of the de-moulding forces or signs of skin
surface pulled away from the core material. It should be noted that samples were
91
examined after a 6 week period of time under poor storage conditions in terms of
humidity and heat controlled conditions. Under such storage conditions, any minor
undetectable damages would have been exacerbated [46].
For various skin volumetric shots, none of the coatings used in the experiments came
away when applied sticky tape was removed at sharp angles as it would be the case
for poor adhesion [63]. Under this perspective, the encapsulation for the selected
material combination and small components as the one used in the experiments is a
viable solution.
For large components however, good adhesion is essential and encapsulation might
not always provide sufficient structural integrity. GIPT application prospects for the
automotive industry have been discussed in the literature review section and for the
size of the components and the thickness of coatings in such applications, the above
mentioned qualitative approach can be misleading [75]. The later is especially true
considering that the surfaces for PP glass and PP long were “rough” as a result of the
different densifying and shrinking rates of reinforcing fibres and PP polymeric phase.
The sharp angle removed sticky tape might not have distributed tension uniformly or
to the maximum extend over covered regions.
The intersections performed in samples caused the interface to open for LDPE and PP
glass skin materials as illustrated in Figures 27 and 28. It is interesting to notice that
the interface opened only in mirror side sections 1 (respectfully to denoted section of
Figure 26) and illustrated in Figures 27 and 28 where as previously discussed, the skin
layer thickness was minimum compared to other sections. In thicker skin sections
92
there was no interface separation as a result of the bandsaw intersections. In these
sections, the tip of a sharp blade was inserted into the interface in order to access the
magnitude of force required to extend the crack as suggested in the literature [41].
Figure 27 Detached skin in LDPE “dish” sample
Figure 28 Detached skin in PP glass “dish” sample
In LDPE skin samples, upon inserting the blade’s tip, the interface opened within few
millimetres. However the magnitude of force required was increased in around gate
93
areas were skin material thickness was greater and the core could not be easily pealed
off. This is an indication that the adhesion levels between ABS and LDPE are
dependent upon the skin thickness as a result of the increased bonding time available.
Under this perspective, ABS and LDPE exhibit poor adhesion as opposed to no
adhesion at all listed in material compatibility Table 3 and it is dependent on the skin
thickness. The inter-relationship of adhesion and skin thickness however needs further
investigation and of course in relation to any fillers or additives defining the
materials’ grades, unfortunately unavailable for the ones used in experiments. Skin
material melt temperatures did not seem to have an impact on the achieved adhesion
levels for the range explored. As discussed earlier, the skin thickness in Figure’s 26
denoted section 1 (mirror sides, opposite the gate area) did not seem to vary with
temperature or skin volumetric shots. Considering the fact that skin layer detachment
upon intersection took place in all temperature moulded samples, temperature margins
did not have any effect on the bond formation kinetics or its strength. Observed
adhesion levels seem to be dependent only on skin layer thickness.
It should be noted that the interfacial instability in Figure’s 26 denoted section 3 for
LDPE skin samples, made the complete core peal off impossible without completely
destroying the sample. Under this perspective the interfacial instabilities can be a
viable solution for an increased structural integrity of parts with poor adherence
material combinations.
Skin material PP glass exhibited the same adhesion relations to coating thickness as
with LDPE but it should be noted that in thicker skin sections, the skin would not pull
away from the core without using somewhat more force than could easily be applied
94
with hand. The adhesion levels achieved between ABS and PP glass are satisfactory
for thicker PP glass skin layers and are of mechanical nature due to the glass filling.
Glass fibres because of the different shrinkage rates can provide mechanical adhesion
at the materials’ interface in a similar way to the one illustrated in Figure 14 (Chapter
4). The interface separation at sample intersections as illustrated in Figure 28 was
because of shrinking forces, greater than the cohesion forces provided by the glass
fibre quality of the material for more narrow surfaces. This also explains the
permanent curve like deformation (warping) of the detached skin layer upon
separation, illustrated in Figure 28. The shrinkage deformation intensity in the radial
direction is because of the mould’s filling pattern. Considering the fountain flow
model discussed in the literature review section, shrinkage is much greater in the
direction of flow [3]. Similar shrinkage differences between core ABS and LDPE
would have resulted in de-moulding damages of corresponding samples regardless of
any variations in skin thickness. Given these findings, the shrinkage rates between
combined materials for a range of mould cooling temperatures should be highly
considered when making material selections with somewhat inferior adhesion levels.
PP long skin samples exhibited superior adhesion levels with no skin detachment
upon bandsaw intersections. Separations were achievable using the blade tip and
exerting significant forces, not easily applied with hand even at minimum achieved
skin material thicknesses across the mould’s surface. This superior adhesion
compared to PP glass is because of the different glass fibre quality reinforcement. It is
interesting to note that when skin was detached after significant effort, snake like
carvings were very apparent in the ABS core material surface which was not the case
with PP glass samples. This also indicates the higher extend of long glass fibres
95
contribution to mechanical adhesion as opposed to “regular” length. However it
should be noted that long glass fibres did not result in warping as with the PP glass
skin samples because of different fibres orientation. Fibre orientation can be a
problem for defects like the warping observed in PP glass intersected samples [8].
It is also interesting to notice the formation of small irregular “blisters” (not quite
spherical as it usually the case with such defects) in PP long reference samples R-5.4,
R-5.5 and R-5.6 (core break through samples and minimal experimental skin material
volumetric shots). These are illustrated in Figure 29. The fact that these “blisters”
could be flattened with minimal effort and no apparent surface disturbance in
neighbouring regions but reappeared upon cessation of load additionally to their
irregular shape, excludes the possibility of them being filled with water as a result of
moisture levels in ABS. ABS was dried under proper conditions before every set of
experiments and no apparent defects were witnessed in any sample that could be
attributed to moisture effects. Under this perspective, it can only be assumed that the
“blisters” were the result of combined regional difference in radial and rest dimension
shrinkage rates.
Figure 29 “Blisters” in surface of a PP long skin moulding
96
This however needs further investigation, beyond the scope of this project to exclude
the possibility of condensed vapours. A valid approach could feature an appropriate
sound speed measuring technique (sound speed differs from air to water) as
intersections would destroy the “blisters” considering their very small size. The radial
shrinkage differences effect is best illustrated in Figure 30.
Figure 30 “Blister” formation mechanism in PP long skin mouldings
The regional difference in shrinkage rates can only be explained through regional
difference in the mould wall’s cooling temperature. Considering the precautions
taken to make sure that the mould’s walls were adequately cleaned, this could be the
effect of small scale regional minerals built up deposition in the internal mould’s
cooling system cavities. A mineral deposition layer thickness of as much as 0.1mm
can reduce the heat transfer by 30% [103]. In such cases, the use of a mild acid could
be a sufficient solution to the problem. At this point it should be noted that the
blistering effect did not appear in the PP glass skin mouldings as the achieved
minimum skin layer was higher of PP long and that for the later, blisters appeared
only in the core breaking through samples.
97
This could also be an indication that PP and ABS do not adhere as also suggested by
the material compatibility Table 3. Overall, it is also a valid extra indication that
maximum length of glass fibre reinforcement provides superior adhesion that can
withstand more severe shrinkage forces, the impact of which has been illustrated with
PP glass samples. Under this perspective, PP long is a good core material choice
under GIPT recommended paint coatings since adhesion levels are not an issue.
Considering however its high cost, the choice of the appropriate paint coating material
based on desired mechanical properties and decorative effect specifications would
determine the overall financial viability of this solution over single paint material
injection mouldings. The implications of this are explored in the next chapter.
98
Chapter 10 Cost Analysis
CHAPTER 10 COST ANALYSIS
This section aims to establish the costs of the GIPT technique and explore certain cost
parameters that affect its financial viability such as the skin to core distribution ratio
which has been acknowledged as a basic factor of the technique’s cost efficiency over
the alternative of 100% through colour mouldings consisting of paint like weatherable
polymers. The cost analysis is based on the production of the “dish” moulding and the
experimental results on maximum core completely encapsulated by skin material for
all core and skin material combinations.
10.1 METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS
Cost calculations and costing methods available in the literature [104] are based on
various assumptions forming special case studies in order for some cost associated
aspects of the injection moulding projects and their effect on profitability to be
explored. These costing calculations include aspects of material stocks and grades,
energy consumption, office overheads, rent of property, rates, as well as indirect and
direct labour. Generally, injection moulding business costs can be categorised into
three groups:-
 fixed costs, independent of production output;
 variable costs but directly related to the production output;
 variable basis costs, not directly related to production output.
99
For the purposes of this cost analysis, variable basis and fixed costs such as power,
light or administration are ignored as it is assumed that the differences between the
techniques considered are negligible. Variable costs such as the machine energy
consumption during operation are also ignored as they would be somewhat unfeasible
to determine and their allocation would be much open to discussion. For example, not
all materials are expected to consume the same amounts of energy during various
processing temperatures. The total machine energy usage during moulding of

0
polypropylene can increase by 0.10 KW for a 30 C increase in processing
temperature while about only 12% of the power supplied is consumed by the material
[103]. The screw and heaters energy consumption varies between 25 – 30 % [103]
and it should be noted that more viscous materials at given temperatures require more
work from the screw. In very rough terms, a 24 hours production factory (69
machines of various sizes), seven days a week and for 46 weeks a year is expected to
consume approximately 214,032 KW [104].
As already discussed, the cost of a co-injection moulding machine along with the
specialised knowledge required for operation has been identified as a draw back for
the GIPT technique commercial uptake and therefore an assumption made for the
purposes of this cost analysis is that moulding machines would need to be purchased.
10.1.1 COST CALCULATION EQUATIONS
Based on a common pattern of costing calculations [75], [103], [104], the costs have
been identified as material, machine and manpower. Calculations of costs associated
with GIPT and single injection mouldings are based on equations 1 to 5 and were
100
performed with a simple Fortran 90/95 program (Digital Visual Fortran Professional
Version 6.1, Compaq Compiler) the source code of which can be found in Appendix
3. All cost expressions are in ₤ per component.
WGTi  MTRi  WCON i , i  SKIN , CORE ( Equation 1)

Material Costs  WGTi  PRICEi , i  SKIN , CORE ( Equation 2)
i
MCC
MachineCosts  ( Equation 3)
MHY  PRP  CYCLE
MPS
Manpower Costs  ( Equation 4)
MHY  CYCLE
Total Cost  Material Costs  MachineCosts  Manpower Costs ( Equation 5)
where:- WGTi [=] weight of material i used in component, MTRi [=] material i
metering value, WCONi [=] material i weight conversion factor, PRICEi [=] material i
purchase price per Kg, MCC [=] the acquisition cost of a moulding machine in ₤,
CYCLE [=] parts per hour, MHY [=] machine operational time in hours per year, PRP
[=] total period of production in years (off-setting initial machine capital investment)
and MPS [=] machine operator’s cost of labour in ₤ per hour.
10.1.2 COMBINED MATERIALS WEIGHT DETERMINATION
The determination of the weight of the materials used for the component’s co-
injection moulding is necessary for the purposes of a cost analysis since materials are
purchased by weight. The injection moulding machine controllers do not provide the
operator with a direct determination of the weight of material shots in the mould
except for the shot length or metering, indicating the specific length of the screw
advancement within the barrel for a material shot into the mould. By weighting single
101
injection material mouldings and correlating them with the screw advancement
indication, a conversion factor can be obtained for the estimation of material weight
used to produce the final component. The weight conversion factor can be obtained by
equation 6:-
Weight
WCON  ( Equation 6)
Metering
Samples (including sprue and runner) were weighted in a Mettler Toledo AG (1,200g
capacity  1g) electronic scale and the weight conversion factors used in the cost
analysis are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Weight conversion factors
Material Weight (Kg) Metering (mm) WCON (Kg/mm)
ABS
0.0879 82 0.00107195
PP long grained
0.0873 82 0.00106463
PP glass filled
0.0882 82 0.00107561
LDPE
0.0698 82 0.00085122
It should be noted that for the small amounts of materials added like pigments in the
form of masterbatch for the particular experiments, weight conversion factors were
not calculated as it is unfeasible to have single injection mouldings with such
materials and determine their percentage in the multi-component’s core. For
approximation purposes and feasible accuracy of the situation, single injection ABS
mouldings were performed with masterbatch material and it is assumed that the
concentration is similar with the multi-component mouldings produced for the
102
purposes of this research. Additionally, it should be kept in mind that the injection
moulding packing phase as well as melt temperature would also affect the previous
calculations and for this reason these are considered only as estimations.
10.1.3 CYCLE TIME ESTIMATIONS
The estimation of each technique’s cycle time was based on time measurements of 4
complete moulding cycles. It should be noted that unintended events such as
components being stuck on the mould during the de-moulding phase, can extend time
intervals measured and of course these situations are far from ideal. Additionally, in
order to avoid core being contaminated with skin material and have the nozzle
adequately cleaned, it is necessary to have the end of the nozzle wiped and purged
from skin in between shots. A different approach would be to ensure that the last
phase of the co-injection process is skin material injection only and with the nozzle
adequately cleaned. For the purposes of this analysis, purging has been included in the
cycle time for the adequate reflection of the co-injection moulding situation.
 Co-Injection Mouldings:-
320
Average Time for 4 mouldings = 320 sec =  0.0888 hours 
3600
4
 Mouldings per hour =  45
0.0888
 Single Injection Mouldings:-
248
Average Time for 4 mouldings = 248 sec =  0.0688 hours 
3600
4
 Mouldings per hour =  58.06
0.0688
103
10.1.4 MATERIAL COSTS
Prices for thermoplastic materials like specific brands or pigments are available from
suppliers and based on orders of 1,000 or 1,500 Kg. It should be noted however that
these prices may vary with the quantities ordered and that they follow the price
variations of oil relatively close [108]. The oil price has a great impact on the
economy and therefore affects the price of non-plastics. This results in increased
prices for plastic materials and with long term relative price differences between some
particular materials hardly the same as illustrated in Figure 31.
Figure 31 Market price of plastic materials 2004 [116]
For the purposes of this analysis, current realistic prices for the experimental material
systems were obtained and are listed in Table 9.
104
Table 9 Material costs [109]
Material ₤/Ton ₤/Kg
ABS
1250 1.250
PP long grained
4000 4.000
PP glass filled
1750 1.750
LDPE
915 0.915
10.1.5 MACHINE COST RATE
Calculations are based on purchase prices of a Battenfeld 250 tonne clamp force, 300g
shot weight co-injection moulding machine and a single injection equivalent machine
with costs allocated on operational time per hour. It should be noted that this
budgeting approach may vary within industries and accounting procedures but is the
most commonly used in the injection moulding industry [89], [104]. Budgeting as a
business practise and following the initial steps of business financial objectives setting
within accounting periods, deals with the feasibility of the approach given a set of
resources. Under this perspective, cost details of the production output and individual
parameters contribution in a time scale are necessary for the profit margin
determination. Cost details can also provide indications on corrective actions to be
taken in order for the targeted revenue at assumed production volumes to be achieved.
It should also be kept in mind that machinery prices may vary according to
specifications, reliability and demand. The machine operational time was assumed to
105
be 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year with a machine capital cost payback spread
equally over a period of 5 years.
Acquisition cost for a co-injection moulding machine: - 150,000 ₤ [75]
Acquisition cost for a single injection moulding machine: - 90,000 ₤ [75] 
hours weeks
Machine operational time (5 years): - 35  48  5 years  8, 400 hours
week year
17.8571 ₤ / hour (Co-injection machine)
 Machine hourly cost rate =
10.7143 ₤ / hour (Single injection machine)
10.1.6 LABOUR HOURLY RATE
The man hourly rate was calculated by the salary of a setter/operator for the plastics
industry (23,000 ₤ per annum [110]), spread over the machine operational time
according to assumptions listed in the previous paragraph.
Moulding labour cost per hour: - 23,000 ₤ per annum / (35 hours per week  48 weeks
per annum) = 13.69 ₤ per hour.
10.2 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS
The calculated costs for the production of a “dish” component with no core breaking
through, using the experimental skin and core material combination samples, current
material costs and measured cycle times are listed in Tables 10, 11 and 12.
106
Table 10 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% long glass fibre)
Sample Metering Metering Skin Component Materials Machine
Reference Core (mm) Skin (mm) (%) Cost (₤) Cost (%) Cost (%)
R-2.3 28 54 65.85 0.9685 27.62 40.97

R-2.2 32 50 60.97 0.9569 26.73 41.47
R-2.1 36 46 56.10 0.9452 25.83 41.98
R-5.1 38 44 53.66 0.9393 25.37 42.24
R-5.2 40 42 51.22 0.9335 24.90 42.51
R-5.3 42 40 48.78 0.9277 24.43 42.78
R-5.7 43 39 47.56 0.9247 24.19 42.91
Table 11 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% glass fibre)
R-3.3 28 54 65.85 0.8402 16.56 47.23

R-3.2 32 50 60.97 0.8380 16.35 47.35
R-3.1 36 46 56.10 0.8359 16.13 47.47
R-6.1 38 44 53.66 0.8348 16.02 47.53
R-6.7 39 43 52.44 0.8342 15.97 47.57
Table 12 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin LDPE)
R-1.3 28 54 65.85 0.7806 10.19 50.83

R-1.2 32 50 60.97 0.7828 10.45 50.69
R-7.4 35 47 57.32 0.7845 10.64 50.58
R-1.1 36 46 56.10 0.7851 10.71 50.54
R-7.1 37 45 54.88 0.7857 10.77 50.51
107
Table 13 features part production costs for all materials used single injection “dish”
component mouldings, their current costs and for single injection cycle times
measured. Calculations are based on equations 1 to 5 as with co-injection moulding
cost results.
Table 13 Part production cost for single material injection mouldings
Sample Material Metering Component Materials Machine
Reference (mm) Cost (₤) Cost (%) Cost (%)
R-7.7 ABS 82 0.5302 20.72 34.80

R-7.9 PP long grained 82 0.7695 45.38 23.98
R-9.0 PP glass filled 82 0.5746 26.86 32.11
R-7.8 LDPE 82 0.4842 13.19 38.11
10.3 COST ANALYSIS RESULTS DISCUSSION
Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 demonstrate the financial implications of the co-injection
based GIPT technique for the tool used in the experiments and the limitations posed
on the maximum ABS core material that can be incorporated within the mould. This is
approximately 52.44 % vol. for PP long grained, 47.56 % vol. for PP glass filled and
45.12% vol. for LDPE skin materials. Even though none of the skin materials used is
suitable for GIPT paint coating applications, the minimisation of skin material volume
in a co-injection moulded component is a business case mostly for GIPT and less for
general co-injection moulding as for the later, combined mechanical and other
properties as a function of material selections and quantities are of greater importance.
108
The implications of maximum core encapsulated on the part’s production cost are
mostly because of the tool’s geometrical and less because of possible rheological
limitations posed by the processing parameters chosen for the conduction of
experiments. All cost results are based on component production with no core
material breakthrough and with the rest part quality parameters such as adhesion
levels or even skin layer distribution ignored.
From the contents of Table 12 it is also evident that there are no production cost
minimisation benefits when incorporating a core material with a minimum layer of
cheaper skin material. This however could be a business case basis for in mould
priming applications where the mechanical properties provided by a relatively
expensive core material are essential for intended use and overall material endurance
to exerted loads.
10.3.1 THE EFFECT OF SKIN TO CORE RATIO
For the examined systems of material combinations using ABS as the core material, a
10% reduction in skin material results to cost savings of 0.0095 ₤/part and 0.0018
₤/part for PP long grained and PP glass filled skin materials respectively while a 10%
reduction in LDPE skin material leads to a 0.0047 ₤/part increase.
The lowest production cost “dish” parts using the co-injection technique as listed in
Tables 10, 11 and 12 are compared against corresponding skin materials single
injection mouldings production costs (listed in Table 13) in Figure 32.
109
Figure 32 Part production costs comparison for experimental material systems
For all single material injection mouldings, production costs per part are significantly
lower compared to co-injection mouldings using the same materials as skins and ABS
as the core material. Excluding the case of core ABS and skin material LDPE
mouldings where the core material cost is higher of the skin material’s, co-injection
mouldings exhibit reduced material costs, with PP long skin material mouldings being
the most significant cost reduction because of increased price difference with ABS.
However, the cost analysis results favour the single skin material injection mouldings
because the material cost savings in corresponding parts are overwhelmed by the
significantly higher machine costs associated with co-injection moulding. Despite the
significantly increased costs per part because of the machine cost contribution in co-
injection moulding and considering that for the PP long single material injection
mouldings material costs account for 24.19% of the total part production cost, it
110
would be reasonable to expect a further and more significant for the case of PP long
material as skin, cost per part reduction if the skin to core ratio was to be even further
reduced. This can be more heavily biased towards cases where for the same core
material and a more expensive skin, it would be feasible to achieve a 20: 80 skin to
core ratio either because of rheological or/and geometrical factors with no core
breaking through. Very sharp corners will always be more packed with skin before
core material reaches them. Geometrical factors would allow more core material to be
incorporated in sections were skin material distribution is favoured because of the
either wise balanced rheological factors. This however is not achievable for the tool
used in the experiments and additionally to the increased machine costs and given cost
difference between skin and core materials, single skin material injection moulding is
the most cost efficient manufacturing approach. If for the PP glass skin material
mouldings, a skin to core ratio equal to that of PP long skin material mouldings was
achievable, the cost differences per part with corresponding single material PP glass
mouldings would have been further reduced.
10.3.2 THE EFFECT OF CYCLE TIMES
Machine cost contribution to co-injection mouldings accounts for about 42-51% of the
final component’s production cost for the material systems used. These costs have
been identified as the reason for the increased cost difference between single injection
and corresponding co-injection mouldings in this case. Costs associated with co-
injection and single injection machine acquisition however, are very unlikely to be
equalised and their impact on production cost per part will be significant for multi-
111
material components with similar price differences as with the systems explored in
this analysis and inability to incorporate larger amounts of core material.
As a rule of thumb in industry, an increase in production volume by a factor of 10 is
considered to result in a production cost decrease by half [111]. Considering
budgeting as the accounting method used and the machinery and labour costs
(equations 3 and 4) as a function of the cycle time, its impact on the final component
production cost should be thoroughly investigated.
The extended cycle time of the co-injection technique compared to single injection
mouldings is because of the nozzle purging and wiping in between shots as discussed
earlier. The cycle time of the co-injection process can be reduced to that of the single
injection if the last phase involves skin material injection only with the nozzle
adequately cleaned. The comparative production costs per component for the same
reference samples as with Figure 32 but with equal cycle times are illustrated in
Figure 33. Costing calculations for all reference samples at equalised cycle times can
be found in Appendix 4.
As illustrated in Figure 33, cost differences between corresponding reference samples
produced by co-injection and single injection mouldings are significantly reduced for
equal cycle times. Even though material cost contribution differences have remained
the same, it can be seen that for equal cycle times, the part with ABS core and PP long
material has a lower production cost compared to single material PP long mouldings.
112
Figure 33 Part production costs comparison for experimental material systems and
equal cycle times
This however is not true for the rest of the reference samples and that is because of
there being not a sufficient price difference between the core and skin materials. The
significant production cost per part reductions for the material systems investigated at
equalised cycle times are mainly because of the machine costs per part reduction and
much less because of the labour cost reductions.
This is best illustrated in Figure 34 where individual cost contributions for machinery,
labour and materials are compared between co-injection and single injection
mouldings for PP long grained and glass materials and for measured as well as
equalised cycle times.
113
Figure 34 Contribution of parameters to part’s production cost for selected reference
samples
It is evident that for all co-injection reference samples illustrated in Figure 34,
machinery costs account for production cost per part differences between reference
samples considering the reduced material costs of co-injection mouldings. Material
cost savings are greater for the ABS core : PP long skin combination compared to the
corresponding single injection PP glass mouldings because of the bigger price
difference between skin and core materials. Co-injection technique’s machinery costs
per component are significantly reduced for equalised cycle times and for the PP long
related reference samples, the machinery cost reduction resulted in a component with
less production cost per part compared to PP long single injection mouldings. This
cost per part difference is not significant, however demonstrates that the increased
machine acquisition cost of a co-injection machine does not outweigh the benefits
114
derived by the incorporation of a cheap core material under a much more expensive
skin polymeric material, like in the case of GIPT approved paint coatings over
recycled core material. When price differences between skin and core materials are
not sufficiently different, the co-injection technique is not cost effective compared to
single skin material injection mouldings, not even when cycle times between
techniques are equalised.
10.3.3 THE EFFECT OF PRICES
For the material systems explored in this section, PP long was the most expensive as it
can be seen from the contents of Table 9. For the purposes of this cost analysis,
aiming to investigate the contribution of parameters in the cost efficiency of the co-
injection moulding based GIPT technique, the experimental samples where used and
skin material selections did not include weatherable, through colour polymer paints as
it should have been the case for GIPT. Currently recommended paints for GIPT,
Grilamid from EMS Chemie and Surlyn Reflections from DuPont [13] cost 6.5 and
5.16 ₤/ Kg [75] respectively and considering the growth in the powder coating
industry and applications [47], it would be reasonable to expect more specialty
polymers with equal or higher prices in order for colours to be provided all the way
through the mouldings whilst retaining or enhancing mechanical properties at the
same time.
Under this perspective, it would be interesting to investigate more thoroughly the
effect of prices in this cost analysis. By forming an expression based on equation 5 as
a function of skin to core price ratio, it would be possible to determine for which
115
ratios, co-injection based GIPT would be more cost effective compared to single
injection through colour mouldings. The expression would be as follows:-
COST ( R)  Total CostGIPT  Total CostColourThrough ( Function 1)
where:- COST [=] cost difference between techniques in ₤ per part, R [=] skin to
ABS core price ratio and Total CostGIPT , Total CostColourThrough are based on the
analytic expression of equation 5 for each technique. An analytic expression of
COST as a function of R can be found in Appendix 5.
Assuming that for the experimental tool, 45% vol. of ABS as core can be safely
encapsulated regardless of skin material selection and with no core breaking through,
Figure 35 illustrates the plot of function 1 for measured and equalised cycle times
against R.
Figure 35 Effect of core and skin relative prices for measured and equal cycle times
116
The GIPT technique is cost effective compared to single injection through colour
mouldings for negative values of function 1. It can be seen from Figure 35 that for the
tool used and 45% vol. of ABS core material encapsulation, co-injection of core and
paint materials becomes favourable compared to single injection paint material
mouldings for prices of paint greater than 6.663 times the price of ABS at measured
cycle times and 3.481 times for equal cycle times.
It should be noted however that prices referred to here are in ₤ per volume of paint
material and not per weight as the screw advancement in mm can be directly
correlated with the volume of material used. One should be very careful on this when
making cost comparisons between techniques and selected material systems with
considerably different densities as materials are purchased by weight. Considering
density of materials as a function of temperature, it can be assumed that if selected
materials are processed within temperature intervals specified by the manufacturers,
there will be no significant impact on the part’s production cost because of the volume
to weight conversions. This of course should be considered in relation to shrinkage
effects and mould temperature which influence the produced part’s quality in terms of
dimensional consistency and possibly structural integrity in the case of co-injection
mouldings.
This demonstrates the cost viability of the GIPT technique for expensive through
colour weatherable polymers and recycled materials as core. Love, J. C. for similar
calculation patterns, has demonstrated significant cost savings against single injection
through colour mouldings for 50% vol. PP core material and Grilamid as well as
Surlyn Reflections paint materials for both measured and equalised cycle times [75].
117
Love, J. C. has also demonstrated that the savings were more significant for the same
material combinations and for 20:80 skin to core ratios [75]. Apart from the price
differences between materials used in J. C. Love’s research, it should be noted that a
great deal of the cost savings were because of the moulding tool used in the
experimental samples enabling 20:80 skin to core ratios besides the contribution of
the processing parameters selected.
In relation to the findings of this research, it should be noted that GIPT cost
effectiveness is a strong function of the achievable skin to core ratio and price
differences between materials used. However, for some mould geometries and a range
of material combinations with only noticeable price differences, through colour
moulding can be the most cost effective solution. Such is the case of the tool and
material combinations used in this research. The combined effect of the skin to core
ratio and material price differences for a tool of equal total material shot volume as
with the one used in this research, ABS as the core material and for measured cycle
times is best illustrated in Figure 36.
Figure 36 illustrates the alteration of the skin to core ABS price ratio for greater
amounts of ABS core encapsulated (3D plot of function 1 against R and MTRABS –
analytic expression can be found in Appendix 5). It can be seen that for a tool of equal
total material shot volume (including sprue and runner) as with the one used in this
research, but with different physical volume distribution that would enable greater
amounts of core material ABS safe encapsulation, the price difference with selected
paint materials at which GIPT is cost effective against through colour single injection
mouldings can be significantly reduced. Respectfully to the contents of Figure 35, it
118
can be seen from Figure 36 that if 60.97 % shot volume of ABS was achievable, GIPT
becomes favourable for price of paint materials greater than 5.190 times the price of
ABS and for a shot volume of 73.17%, the price of paint materials needs to be greater
than 4.492 times.
Figure 36 Combined effect of core and skin relative prices with skin to core
volumetric ratios and measured cycle times
It should be noted however that significantly increased shot volumes of high viscosity
core materials would inevitably result in contamination in the nozzle [15] and
therefore the purging stage cannot be avoided. This would affect the additional cost
savings achievable by using less expensive paint coatings as it would be the case for
cycle times equal to single injection moulding.
119
Chapter 11 Conclusions
CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS
This research featured a business case for the co-injection moulding based GIPT in –
mould decoration technology, looking to investigate the effect of skin material
temperature on some key aspects of high importance for the technological and
financial viability of the technique over the alternatives and especially the through
colour single injection paint mouldings. The GIPT key aspects are maximum core
encapsulation in a relatively complex geometry mould, most uniform skin and core
layer distribution and maximum adhesion levels between selected materials. For
practical reasons and to minimise the process’ inherent complexity implications in the
investigation as a result of the inter-relationship between processing variables,
temperature was the only parameter investigated.
The findings of this research suggested no effect of skin material temperature on
maximum core ABS encapsulation. Mould geometry had an effect on uniform skin
and core material distribution with temperature’s contribution not being very
apparent. Given however the GIPT’s product “sandwich” structure formation
mechanism, the results have been inconclusive. The effect of temperature would have
best been explored in parallel to the injection speeds of materials. Adhesion levels
suggested a correlation with skin material thickness as a result of the increased
bonding time available between materials in melt state, even when overall
compatibility was poor. Interfacial instabilities witnessed as a result of the mould’s
geometry and mould filling implications, had a positive contribution to adhesion level
requirements.
120
The analysis of production costs associated with the GIPT technique demonstrated
that the high machinery cost should not be a draw back for the technique’s
commercial uptake. Findings suggested that the technique’s financial viability over
the alternative of through colour single injection paint moulding is strongly dependent
on the achieved skin to core volumetric ratio in the mould and the skin to core price
ratio. For a given mould geometry and a selection of core material, the higher
amounts of core encapsulated the lesser expensive paint coatings can be used for the
product to be competitive to single injection through colour mouldings from the
production costs point of view.
For the relatively complex mould geometry and material combinations used in this
research, through colour single injection mouldings proved to be the most cost
effective solution. That was because of the combined effect of maximum core
material encapsulation as a result of mould geometry restrictions and price differences
with skin materials. When considering the most appropriate and cost effective in-
mould decoration technique with thermoplastic materials for high volume production
in industry, the part’s geometry in terms of physical volume distribution in space
should be thoroughly considered before the final selection.
Geometry and mould filling dynamics might implicate experiments with injection
speeds’ effect investigation on maximum core material encapsulation because of the
possibility of significant regional variations in shear rates within the mould’s surface.
Injection speeds might be adjustable up to a point with minimal or no effect at all but
as argued in this research, this could also result in detrimental effects for the product
because of the different response between skin and core materials in shear rates
121
variations. For this reason apart from practicality, injection speeds variations were
avoided and maximum core encapsulation research was focused respectfully to the
temperature process variable. Considering that for the relatively complex geometry
mould used in the experiments temperature did not have an effect on maximum core
material encapsulation, different for every material combination used, mould’s
geometry might be posing significant restrictions on the range of materials that could
be successfully utilised in GIPT from the financial point of view. This could also be a
limiting factor for the further cost reductions achievable such as with the GIPT and
recycled materials buried in the part’s core case.
Even though injection speeds should be investigated further along with temperature
for complex geometries, this research’s outcome could be a potential indication of a
possible pitfall inherent in the GIPT technique and affecting its financial viability over
the rival technologies. The mechanisms of GIPT are of nature complex and for more
complex geometries further investigation is necessary in order for the technique’s full
commercial uptake and full potential exploitation. As previously stated, the high
machinery costs should not be an issue but the inherent complexity might prove to be
a major drawback. Under this perspective, the Moldflow software should be a
valuable assistance in evaluating mould filling dynamics and assisting the design of a
successful product.
122
Chapter 12 Further Research
CHAPTER 12 FURTHER RESEARCH
The present research on the GIPT in-mould decoration for industrial applications was
based on oversimplified rheological explanations of the interfacial effects observed
and maximum core material encapsulation. Apart from the oversimplified approach
adopted, the effect of viscoelasticity which also affects the thickness of layers [3],
[18] has been ignored and the process has been treated as quasi-steady extension of
the materials utilised. This approach however is often the case in the plastic industrial
parts production processes [112] but considering the strong dependence of GIPT’s
financial viability on achieved skin material thickness especially for more complex
geometries, more accurate flow and stability models need to be developed. These
need to be based on theoretical and computational analyses with a focus on parametric
sensitivity, process stability and multiplicity of co-injection moulding machine
operating states.
The process complexity is high and if experimental routes are to be adopted, it is has
been shown from this research that practical approaches in processing parameter
selections are not always applicable. Considering however the modularisation and
intricacy minimisation requirements in industry, processing parameters investigation
needs to be kept to a minimum. Complex geometry GIPT product case related
experiments need to be conducted with temperature and injection speeds variations to
fully understand the effects on maximum core material encapsulation and optimised
output. In all cases, viscosity matching should be checked and evaluated. The research
should also include core material temperature effect investigation. Selden, R. [19] has
found core material temperature to be a highly influencing parameter in layer
123
distribution. Based on the viscosity ratio approach, core material temperature might
result in the same effect as with skin material temperature to the extend that ratios are
altered but it should be noted that since core material is not in direct contact with the
mould walls it has a different cooling rate and remains molten for longer. As a result
of that, viscosity ratio is not constant at various snapshots of the mould filling or
cooling. Additionally, as a result of the combined effect of flow, shear and
temperature gradients, crystalline materials exhibit a three layer microstructure [3].
Considering that core material flows over skin, for crystalline skin materials it could
be possible that core material temperature would have an effect on maximum core
encapsulation even if skin material temperature would not. The skin material layer
morphology at various snapshots will result in different shear rates for incoming core
material melt and therefore apparent viscosity.
Adhesion has been evaluated to be a function of achieved skin material thickness.
Considering however the complexity of the bond formation mechanism, not being
fully understood [3], [19], it is essential to have experiments conducted with GIPT
approved paint coating materials and a range of selected core materials. This
investigation should also be including post industrial plastic recycled materials as they
are an additional source of the technique’s financial competitiveness. The later is very
important considering the limited knowledge on the bond formation mechanisms, the
composition and processing history of possibly painted recycled material core and the
fact that GIPT recommended paint coatings are specialty polymers and as such, their
exact chemical structure and composition is very unlikely to be revealed by the
manufacturers for obvious reasons.
124
A cost analysis on GIPT produced parts with recycled core materials but with all
quality aspects included against single injection colour through mouldings would also
be very interesting. In all cases, a niche market investigation is all times applicable
for GIPT considering the process’ complexity but with potentially very high benefits.
125
Chapter 13 References
CHAPTER 13 REFERENCES
1. Whelan, A. ; Injection Moulding Machines (Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
1984).
2. Griskey, R. G. ; Polymer Process Engineering (Chapman and Hall 1995).
3. Love, J. C. and Goodship, V. (2002), “Multi-Material Injection Moulding”, Rapra
Technology Ltd., Rapra Review Reports, Vol.13, No.1.
4. Anonymous (1993, November), “Engineering Plastics and Elastomers: A design
Guide”, The Design Council, pp.1-39.
5. Goodship, V. (2002), “Interfacial Instabilities: Implications for Multi-Material
Moulding”, PhD Submission, The University of Warwick, 2002.
6. Stoeckhert, K. ; Mold-Making Handbook for the Plastics Engineer (Hanser
Publishers 1983).
7. Michaeli, W. ; Plastics Processing - An Introduction (Hanser Publishers 1992).
8. Whelan, A ; Injection Moulding Materials (Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
1982).
9. Miller, E ; Introduction to Plastics And Composites (Marcel Dekker 1996).
10. McRoskey, J. (2000, January), “Lower Material Costs? Fewer Design
Constraints? ”, Molding Systems, Vol.58, No1, pp.28-31.
11. Toensmeier, P. A. (1999, May), “Co-injection Expands Design Options in a
Range of Parts”, Modern Plastics International, Vol.29, No.1, pp.30-31.
12. Moss, M. D. (1997, May), “Hot Runners Boost Co-injection Moulding Process”,
Modern Plastics International, Vol.27, No.3, pp.74-76.
13. Love, J. C. and Goodship, V. (2002), “In-Mould Decoration of Plastics”, Rapra
Technology Ltd., Rapra Review Reports, Vol.13, No.2.
126
14. Fox, R. W. and McDonald, A. T. ; Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (John Wiley
and Sons 2003).
15. Somnuk, P. (1995), “Experimental Study of Simultaneous Co-injection Moulding
Process”, PhD Submission, The University of Warwick, 1995.
16. Smith, G. F. and Somnuck, P. (1995 May), “Experimental Study of Simultaneous
Co-injection Moulding Process”, SPE Conference Proceedings, Vol. I, Antec 95,
Boston, USA, 1995 May.
17. Zoetelief, W. (1995), “Multi-component Injection Moulding”, PhD Thesis
Submission, The University of Technology, Eindhoven.
18. Dimakopoulos, Y. and Tsamopoulos, J. (2004 February), "On the Gas-Penetration
in Straight Tubes Completely Filled with a Viscoelastic Fluid", Journal of Non-
Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, Vol.17, Iss.2-3, pp.117-139.
19. Selden, R. (1998, December), “Co-Injection Moulding: Compatibilisation of
Polyamide-Polypropylene Sandwich Structures”, Journal of Injection Moulding,
Vol.2, No.8, pp.165-177.
20. Kuhmann, K. and Ehrestein, G. W. (1998 April), “Mono-sandwich Injection
Moulding: Skin-Core Structure and Properties of Sandwich Moulded Anti-
Electrostatic Components”, Conference Proceedings, Vol. I, pp.372-376, Antec
98, Atlanta, USA, 1998 April.
21. Anonymous (1998, August), “Sandwich Moulding Using Sequenced Screw
Loading”, Medical Device Technology, Vol.9, No. 6, pp.38-39.
22. Anonymous (1999, October), “Developments in Multi-Component Injection
Moulding”, Plastics News International, pp.56-60.
23. White, L. (1998, December), “Engel Sees Multi-part Potential”, European Rubber
Journal, Vol. 180, No.12, p.17.
127
24. Anonymous (1992, March), “Big Battenfeld Makes Multi-Component TV Parts”,
British Plastics And Rubber, No.3, p.11.
25. Eckardt, H. (1997, July), “Innovative Injection Moulding Processes for Better
Products”, Polymer Process Engineering ’97, Conference Proceedings, pp.2-16,
London UK 1997 July.
26. Anonymous (2000, March), “Negri Joins The 2K Line-Up”, Plastics And Rubber
Weekly, No.1828, p.16.
27. Tinson, J. (1997, July), “Appraisal of 2K Moulding”, Polymer Process
Engineering ’97, Conference Proceedings, pp.24-31, London UK 1997 July.
28. Anonymous (1998, May), “Co-injection Machines Broadens Its Capabilities”,
Injection Moulding, Vol.6, No.5, p.127.
29. Ogando, J. (1998, October), “Take a Shot at Multi-Component Moulding”,
Plastics Technology, Vol.44, No.11, pp.42-46.
30. Anonymous (1999, October), “Co-Injection Moulding for Innovative Packaging”,
Revista de Plasticos Modernos, Vol.78, No.520, pp.450-454. (translated from
Spanish).
31. Hare, R. B. (1998, May), “Multi-Component Injection Moulding to Enhance
Product, Reduce Cost”, Emerging Plastics Materials and Process Technologies for
Automotive Interiors, Conference Proceedings, Detroit USA, Paper 7, (21st May
1998).
32. Toensmeier, P. A. and Hilpold, L. (1999, July), “New Co-injection Designs Adds
Applications Potential”, Modern Plastics International, Vol.29, No.7, pp.77-78.
33. Shukri, Z. (2003, September), “Application and Future Prospects of Co-injection
Moulding Technology”, MSc Dissertation, The University of Warwick, 2003.
128
34. Smith, G. F. and Easterlow, R. A. (1996), “New Method for Manufacturing
Painted Components”, The Institute Of Materials; Plastics, Rubber And
Composites Processing And Applications, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.115-119.
35. Love, J. C., Smith, G. F., Coates, R. and Pharaoh, M. W. (2002, March), “In-
mould Painting Using Granular Injected Paint Technology” Proceedings of
Injection Moulding 2002, Barcelona, Spain, 207.
36. EPIC Club Generic Information News Release, circa 1992.
37. Hudson, R. (2001 June), “Developments in The European Injection Moulding
Industry-Machinery, Manufacturers and Markets”, Rapra Industry Analysis
Series, Rapra Technology Ltd., p. 230.
38. Fuller, H. B. and Rover Group (1994), “Granular Injected Paint Technology
Commercialisation Strategy Development”, Unpublished.
39. Iseler, K. A. and Wilkinson, R. E. (1984), “A Surface Evaluation System for Class
A Applications”, 39th Annual Conference, Reinforced Plastics /Composites
Institute, The Society Of Plastics Industry Inc.
40. Hoffman, J. D. et al (1984 January), “Novel SMC Formulations for Class A
Finishes”, 39th Annual Conference, Reinforced Plastics /Composites Institute, The
Society Of Plastics Industry Inc.
41. Love, J. C. (2002 September), “Executive Summary”, EngD Submission, The
University of Warwick, 2002 September.
42. Smith, G. F. and Easterlow, R. A., “Method of Forming a Moulding by Dual
Injection and a Moulding So Formed”, Rover Group Ltd., Patent Number: US
5562979 A 19961008.
43. Eckardt, H. (1987 December), “Co-injection Charting a New Territory and
Opening New Markets”, Journal of Plastics, Vol.23, pp.555-592.
129
44. Smith, G. (2004), “Revealing New IMD Processing Ideas, Techniques and
Applications”, Warwick manufacturing Group, In-Mould Decorating: Delivering
Cost Effective and Innovative Surprise and Delight Designs Conference 2004,
Düsseldorf, Germany, 2004 June.
45. Rucinski, P. (2001, September), “Moldflow Manufacturing Solutions For the
Automation, Control and Monitoring of The Injection Moulding Process”, SPE
Topical Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2001 September.
46. Love, J. C. (2002 September), “An Examination of the Properties and
Applications of GIPT”, EngD Submission, The University of Warwick, 2002
September.
47. Ulrich, L. D. (Ed.) ; User’s Guide To Powder Coating (Society Of Manufacturing
Engineers Dearborn, Michigan 1993).
48. Lambourne, R. (Ed.) ; Paint and Surface Coatings – Theory And Practice (Ellis
Horwood Series in Applied Science and Industrial Technology 1993).
49. Love, J. C. (1999), “The Appearance of Alternative Paint Technologies”, MSc
Dissertation, The University of Warwick, 1999 September.
50. Storms, C. D. ; Paints For Plastics (Non-Metals) (Automotive Paints and Coatings
VCH 1995).
51. Routs, A. (1998 September), “New Possibilities for Quality Control in Coating
Lines”, Surface World, pp.13-14.
52. Kigle-Boeckler, G. (1996), “Surface Smoothness and its Influence on Paint
Appearance – How to Measure and Control it, Vol.III”, Technical Papers (Society
of Plastics Engineers).
53. Hunter, R. S. and Harold, R. W. ; The Measurement of Appearance (John Wiley
New York 1987)
130
54. Guthrie, J. T. and Weakley, A. P. (1996), “Assessment of the Orange-Peel Defect
in Automotive Coatings”, Surface Coatings International, Vol. 79, No.2, pp.58-62.
55. White, H. and Michael, R. (2001), “The Measurement of Appearance”,
Proceedings of SPE - The International Society for Optical Engineering,
Vol.4421, pp.615-617.
56. Pharaoh, M. et al (2001), “Orange Peel: Who Cares?”, Proceedings Of The
Institution Of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 215, Part D, pp.1241-1244.
57. Brydson, J. A. ; Plastic Materials (Butterworth Heinemann 1995).
58. Gregorovich, B. V. et al (2001), “Scratch and Mar and other Mechanical
Properties as Functions of Chemical Structure for Automotive Refinish Coatings”,
Progress In Organic Coatings, Vol.43, pp.175-187.
59. Steimel, K. ; Specialities for Automotive Coatings (Automotive Paints and
Coatings VCH 1995).
60. Brown, R. P. ; Handbook of Plastics Test Methods (Longman Scientific & Plastics
and Rubber Institute 1988).
61. Trezona, H. I. and Hutchings, I. M. (1999), “Three-Body Abrasive Wear Testing
of Soft Materials”, Wear, 233-235, pp.209-221.
62. Smith, G. F. (1998, March), “Granular Injection Paint Technology”, Automotive
Paint Finishing, Towards The Year 2000, Institute of Materials, 4th March 1998.
63. Berins, M. L (Ed.) ; Decorating Plastics, Plastics Engineering Handbook of the
Society Of The Plastics Industry (Chapman and Hall 1991).
64. De Gennes, P. G. ; Introduction to Polymer Dynamics (Cambridge University
Press 1990).
65. Mark, H. F. et al ; Encyclopaedia of Polymer Science and Engineering, Vol.3
(John Wiley and Sons Inc 1985)
131
66. Datta, S. and Lohse, D. J. ; Polymeric Compatibilizers: Uses and Benefits in
Polymer Blends (Hansen Publishing 1996).
67. Godshall, D. (1999), “Isotactic Polypropylene Sheath Bicomponent, Fibres
Suitable for Use in Carpeting Applications”, MSc Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
68. Atkins, P. et al ; Physical Chemistry (Oxford University Press 2002).
69. Brydson, J. A. ; Flow Properties of Polymer Melts (George Godwin UK 1981)
70. Anonymous (2001). Mee 499/590 – Design For The Environment, Summer 2001,
Material Stage Guidelines [Online]. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, The University of Dayton.
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/rbailey/courses/dfe/materials.pdf [22 Jan
2005]
71. Murphy, J. (no date), “Plastics and Elastomers in Automobiles: Current Uses and
Development Trends, Specifications and Statistics, Recycling Issues and
Projects”, Applied Market Information.
72. Rungseesantivanon, W. (2001), “Factors Affecting Adhesion of Polymers During
Co-Injection”, PhD Submission, The University of Warwick.
73. Mark, J. et al ; Physical Properties of Polymers (Cambridge University Press
2004).
74. Coates, J. R. (1998), “In-mould Primer”, Warwick Manufacturing Group Internal
Document.
75. Love, J. C. (2002 September), “Getting GIPT to Work”, EngD Submission, The
University of Warwick.
132
76. Anonymous (2000, December), “Weather Resistant ETP Brings Paintless
Automotive Body Panels a Step Closer”, Modern Plastics International, Vol.30,
No.12, p.106.
77. Anonymous (1997, October), “Plastics Body Panels Take Off”, European Plastics
News, Vol.24, No. 9, p.19.
78. Corcoran, E. (1999, December), “Benefits of Pre-mould Powder Coatings”,
Reinforced Plastics, Vol.43, No.12, pp.38-44.
79. Liebold, R. (1989), “On-Line Painting of In-Mould Coated SMC Parts in the
Automobile and Truck Industry”, Composite Polymers, Vol.2, No.4, pp.335-352.
80. McBain, D. et al (1997, May), “Advances in In-Mould Coatings”, Reinforced
Plastics, Vol.41, No.5, pp.34-40.
81. Robinson, P. J. (1993), “Decorating and Coating of Plastics”, Rapra Technology
Ltd., Rapra Review Reports, Vol.6, No.65.
82. Anonymous (1998, November), “Plastic Car Panels Move Away From the Need
to Colour Coat”, British Plastics and Rubber, pp.8-10.
83. Peacock, R. and Cannon, S. (1999, May), “Injection Moulding Process Creates
New Technical Forming Demand”, British Plastics and Rubber, pp.42-44.
84. Raphanaud, S. (2004), “IMD : The view of Peugeot Citroën”, PSA Peugeot
Citroën, In-Mould Decorating: Delivering Cost Effective and Innovative Surprise
and Delight Designs Conference 2004, Düsseldorf, Germany, 2004 June.
85. Reade, L. (2000, November), “Hanging on the Telephone”, European Plastics
News, Vol.27, No.11, p.44.
86. Oxberry, E. (2002, March), Vehicle Engineering & Design.
87. Shale, S. G. (1998, February), “Driving Plastics: A Validation of the Use of a
Thermoplastic Fender”, MSc Dissertation, The University of Warwick.
133
88. Cramer, D. R. and Brylawski, M. M. (1996, November), “Ultralight-Hubrid
Vehicle Design: Implications for the Recycling Industry”, Society of Plastics
Engineers, Recycling Division, 3rd Annual Recycling Conference Proceedings,
Chicago IL, USA.
89. Anonymous (No Date). Plastics Industry Issues [Online]. British Plastics
Federation. http://www.bpf.co.uk/bpfindustry/The_Process_Costing_Guide.cfm
[22 February 2005]
90. Ainsley, C. and Gong, H. (1999), “Costs and Performance of Injection Moulding
Tools Produced Using Slip Casting”, Rapid Prototyping, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.35-44.
91. Mascarin, A. E. et al (1995, October/November), “Costing the Ultralite in Volume
Production: Can Advanced Composite Bodies-in-White be Affordable?”,
International Body Engineering Conference & Exposition: Advanced
Technologies & Processes (Detroit, MI), USA, 19:56–69.
92. Fisher, J. and Dieffenbach, J. R. (1995, October/November), “Recent
Developments in Thermoplastic Composites for Body Panels and Structures”,
International Body Engineering Conference & Exposition: Advanced
Technologies & Processes (Detroit, MI), USA, 19:9–17.
93. Anonymous (2000), “Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report”, Commission on Engineering and
Technical Systems, National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA.
94. Anonymous (2001, April). Newsroom: International Plastic Car Body Conference
[Online]. Net Composites. http://www.netcomposites.com/default.asp [28 May
2005].
134
95. Anonymous (No Date). New Plastics and the Automobile: What’s Next? [Online].
Automobile Engineering International Online.
http://www.sae.org/automag/plastics/06.htm [28 May 2005]
96. Davies, M. J. (1998, March), “Environmental Legislation And Future Trends:
Automotive Paint Finishing Towards The Year 2000”, The University of
Warwick.
97. Anonymous (2001, May). Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part I [Online].
Local Authority Air and Integrated Pollution Control Systems, Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions.
http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/info/labrief.html [28 May 2005].
98. Rayle, J. W. and Cassil, D. W. ; Advancements in Injection In-Mold Coating
Technology (Elsevier Science Inc 1995).
99. Colvin, R. and Gabriele, M. C. (1998, April), “Decorating Adds Value, Boosts
Profits and Builds Business”, Modern Plastics International, Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 62-
63.
100. Knights, M. (1995, May), “Is In-Mould Labelling in Your Cards”, Plastics
Technology, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp.48-53.
101. (2004). Detailed IMD [Online]. General Electric Company.
http://www.geimd.com/detail/design_part.html [25 April 2005]
102. Gregus, M. L. (2001, June), "Painting Automotive Plastics Parts: A Market in
Constant Transition", SME Finishing Conference, June 2001, Chicago, Illinois,
USA.
103. Whelan, A. and Craft J. L. ; Developments in Injection Moulding – 2: Improving
Efficiency (Applied Science Publishers 1981).
135
104. Bown, J. ; Injection Moulding of Plastic Components: A Guide To efficiency,
Fault Diagnosis And Cure (McGraw Hill UK 1979).
105. Bown, J. and Robinson J. D. ; Injection, Transfer Moulding and Plastics Mould
Design (Business Books London 1970).
106. Anonymous (August/ July 2000), “Plan to Use Sandwich Moulding for Car
Windows”, British Plastics and Rubber, p.27.
107. Menges, G. et al ; How to Make Injection Molds (Hanser Publishing 1999).
108. Murphy, J. (1980), “The value of Plastics”, Plastics Today, Vol.7, p.19.
109. Personal communication with Paul Griffiths of CW Polymers Ltd, 31st
March 2005.
110. Anonymous (No Date). Plastic Vacancies [Online]. Network 92 Plastic and
Engineering Recruitment Solutions.
http://www.network92.co.uk/plasticvacancies.html [28 May 2005].
111. Personal communication with Geoffrey Constable of Geoffrey Constable and
Associates Consulting, 25th February 2005.
112. Tsamopoulos, J. (2003 April). Current Focus of Research: Flow and Stability in
Polymer and Electronic Material Processing [Online]. Laboratory of
Computational Fluid Dynamics - Chemical Engineering Department of Patras
University. http://www.chemeng.upatras.gr/index.htm [22 June 2005].
136
Appendix 1 Equipment and Tools
APPENDIX 1 EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS
Figure 37 Battenfeld GmbH BM-T1100/2  300 simultaneous co-injection moulding
machine
Figure 38 “Dish” tool, stationary half of the mould
137
Figure 39 “Dish” tool, moving half of the mould
Figure 40 “Dish” moulded sample
138
Figure 41 Maguire Low Pressure Dryer
139
Appendix 2 Materials
APPENDIX 2 MATERIALS USED
Information and data for the materials used in this research have been obtained from
the following sources:-
1. Whelan, A. ; Injection Moulding Materials (Elsevier Applied Sciences Publishing
1982)
2. Domininghaous, H. ; Plastics For Engineers – Materials, Properties, Applications
(Hanser Publishers 1993)
ABS (ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE STYRENE)
1. Some Suppliers and Trademarks:- Abson (Abtec), BASF (Terluran), Bayer
(Novodur).
2. Properties:- Hard tough material with good resistance to impact even at low
temperatures. High resistance to temperature with density about 1.05 (depends on
grade). Low water absorption and therefore good electrical insulation properties.
3. Ease of flow:- Relatively easy flowing which depends on grade.
4. Shrinkage:- About 0.6%.
5. Handling:- Requires moisture removal. Drying temperatures of 70-800C for 2-4
hours.
6. Shot Capacity:- Up to 90% of the machine rated capacity.
7. Shutting Down:- Purging with a different material is not necessary.
8. Other Comments:- A very wide range of grades is possible. “Typical” composition
contains 20-30% acrylonitrile, 20-30% butadiene and 40-60% stryrene.
9. Typical Components:- Luggage, appliance housings, radio and TV cabinets
complete instrument panel surround in cars.
140
LDPE (LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE)
1. Some Suppliers and Trademarks:- BASF (Lupolen LD), Du Pont (Alathon), Shell
(Carlona).
2. Properties:- Crystalline thermoplastic with a milky white natural colour and a soft
wax like feel. Excellent chemical resistance and electric insulation properties. Low
density (Type I) ranges from 0.940-0965 g cm-3 and is related to crystallinity
(number of short chain branches and distribution).
3. Ease of flow:- Easy flowing material.
4. Shrinkage:- 0.020-0.050 in/in (Type I)
5. Handling:- No pre-drying requirements unless hydroscopic additives are present.
6. Shot Capacity:- Minimum of 10% and maximum of 90%.
7. Shutting Down:- No need to purge with another material.
8. Other Comments:- A very high coefficient of expansion and therefore difficult
dimensional consistency.
9. Typical Components:- Pipe couplings, bowls, lids, pots and bins.
PP (POLYPROPYLENE)
1. Some Suppliers and Trademarks:- BASF (Novolen), Shell (Shell PP).
2. Properties:- Stiff, stress crack resistant crustalline material and naturally translucent
with a milky white colour. Improved impact strength for copolymers (major
constituent of which) when rubber modified.
3. Ease of flow:- Relatively easy flowing material.
4. Shrinkage:- Approximately 2%
5. Handling:- No pre-drying requirements. Moulded parts should avoid being
overstacked because of creep and distortion possibilities.
141
6. Shot Capacity:- Up to approximately 85% of the machine rated capacity.
7. Shutting Down:- No need to purge with another material.
8. Other Comments:- Stripped undercuts from the mould may occur because of its
high resilience and flexibility.
9. Typical Components:- Housings with moulded integral hinges, luggage,
housewares, pump components interior parts for cars.
FTP (FIBRE REINFORCED THERMOPLASTICS)
1. Suppliers and Trademarks:- As for the base polymer and with trademarks similar to
those employed for base polymer.
2. Properties:- Depends on the base polymer and on type and concentration of fibres
with glass being the most common. 20-40% is the most common concentration
levels while above 40% processing can become difficult. Stiffness increases with
fibre length but strength is not necessarily increased compared to base polymer.
3. Ease of flow:- Higher viscosity than of base polymers.
4. Shrinkage:- Much reduced to base polymer but fibre orientation can cause problems
such as warping.
5. Handling:- Accordingly to base polymer.
6. Shot Capacity:- Usually below that specified for PS.
7. Shutting Down:- As for the base polymer.
8. Other Comments:- Are usually based on expensive polymers. Impact strength is
improved by fibre addition at low temperatures.
9. Typical Components:- Power tool casings, energy absorbing bumpers, brake fluid
tanks, bearings, gear.
142
Appendix 3 Cost Calculations Program
APPENDIX 3 COST CALCULATIONS PROGRAM
The source code of the Fortran 90/95 (Compaq Compiler, Professional Edition V.6.0)
program used for the cost per moulding calculations of Chapter 10 follows.
PROGRAM INJ_SGIPT
USE DFLIB ! Establish links to DLL libraries
USE DFPORT
USE TJD ! Student’s custom made library
!*****************************************************************
!*
!* Coded by Theodore Bouras-Soulimas
!* WMG Engineering Business Management full time MSc student
!* The University of Warwick UK
!* Last revision: 22 June 2005
!* email:- tedbouras@gmail.com
!*****************************************************************
!*
!* NOTES
!* -----------------------------------------------------------
!*
!* 01. Program that performs part production cost calculations
!* for co-injection/GIPT applications as well as single
!* material injection mouldings.
!*
!* 02. Built as Quickwin (multiple windows - Windows 95 command
!* line style) application.
!*
!* 03. Application links against Fortran Compaq Compiler DLL
!* Libraries and student's custom library TJD.
!*
!* 04. SUBROUTINES of TJD are for user-friendly/proof
!* purposes.
!*
!* 05. Run time error proof enabled.
!*
!* 06. Executable in every Microsoft Windows Platform.
!*
!*****************************************************************
IMPLICIT NONE
!Global Arguments Declaration - TJD LIBRARY SUBROUTINES

!======================================================
CHARACTER(LEN=250) :: Program_name, Path, FullPathR, FullPathH, InReq, CUsInput
CHARACTER(LEN=250),DIMENSION(:),ALLOCATABLE :: ValidCUsInputs
INTEGER :: UnNum, k, ValidCUsInputsDIM, IHbnd, ILbnd, Iexep, IUsInput
REAL*8 :: RHbnd, RLbnd, Rexep, RUsInput
LOGICAL :: HELP, Fmode, Imode, Iabmode, Rabmode, Iexmode, Rexmode
!Local Arguments Declaration

!===========================
INTEGER :: X, I
REAL*8 :: WCON_SKIN,PRICE_SKIN,MTR_SKIN,WCON_CORE,PRICE_CORE,MTR_CORE
REAL*8 :: MPS,MCC,Y,PRP,WeeksYear,HoursWeek,SC_RATIO,R_X,CHECK1,CHECK2
REAL*8 :: MACHINE_COSTS, MANPOWER_COSTS,MATERIAL_COSTS,TOTAL_COST, MHY, CYCLES
REAL*8 :: MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION, MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION, MANPOWER_CONTRIBUTION
CHARACTER(LEN=250) :: SKIN, CORE, W_TOTAL_COST, W_MATERIAL_COSTS
CHARACTER(LEN=250) :: W_MACHINE_COSTS, W_MANPOWER_COSTS,W_MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION
CHARACTER(LEN=250) :: W_MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION,W_MANPOWER_CONTRIBUTION,W_SC_RATIO
Program_name='INJ_SGIPT' ; UnNum=10 ; HELP=.FALSE. ; Fmode=.TRUE.
143
CALL TJD_INTERFSETUP ; CALL TJD_MARQUEE(Program_name)

CALL FDAY ; CALL GETPATH(Path,Program_name)
CALL OPEN_RLOGH(UnNum,Program_name,HELP,Path,FullPathR,FullPathH)
!Initialize counter
!==================
k=0
PRINT*, "Program that performs part production cost calculations for co-injection/
GIPT"
PRINT*, "applications as well as single material injection mouldings."
DO
!====================================================================================
k=k+1
PRINT*, ""
PRINT*, "<Co-injection moulding costing> Enter mode:
(CO)"
PRINT*, "<Single injection moulding costing> Enter mode:
(SG)"
PRINT*, ""
!User's Input Mode

!=================
InReq='Enter mode'; ValidCUsInputsDIM=2 ;
ALLOCATE(ValidCUsInputs(ValidCUsInputsDIM))
ValidCUsInputs(1)='CO' ; ValidCUsInputs(2)='SG'
CALL INPUTMODE(InReq,CUsInput,ValidCUsInputs,ValidCUsInputsDIM,UnNum,Fmode)
DO I=1, ValidCUsInputsDIM ; ValidCUsInputs(I)='' ; END DO ;

DEALLOCATE(ValidCUsInputs)
InReq=''
Imode=.FALSE. ; Iabmode=.FALSE. ; Rabmode=.TRUE. ; Iexmode=.FALSE.

Rexmode=.FALSE. ; RHbnd=10.D10 ; RLbnd=1.D-10
IF (TRIM(ADJUSTL(CUsInput)).EQ.'CO') THEN
PRINT*,"" ; PRINT*,"SKIN MATERIAL DATA" ; PRINT*,"=================="

PRINT*,""
PRINT*, "Enter name of material" ; READ '(A)', SKIN ; SKIN=ADJUSTL(SKIN) ;
PRINT*,""
InReq='Enter Weight Conversion Factor for material'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,WCON_SKIN,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

& Iexep,Rexep,Fmode,Imode,Iabmode,Rabmode,Iexmode,Rexmode) ; InReq='' ;
PRINT*,""
InReq='Enter cost of material (currency/Kg)'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,PRICE_SKIN,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

PRINT*,""
InReq='Enter weight screw advancement metering for material (mm)'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,MTR_SKIN,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"" ; PRINT*, "CORE MATERIAL DATA" ; PRINT*,"=================="

PRINT*,""
ELSE
PRINT*,"" ; PRINT*, "MATERIAL DATA" ; PRINT*,"============="

PRINT*,""
END IF
144
PRINT*, "Enter name of material" ; READ '(A)', CORE ; CORE=ADJUSTL(CORE) ;

PRINT*,""
InReq='Enter Weight Conversion Factor for material'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,WCON_CORE,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

& Iexep,Rexep,Fmode,Imode,Iabmode,Rabmode,Iexmode,Rexmode) ; InReq='' ; PRINT*,""
InReq='Enter cost of material (currency/Kg)'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,PRICE_CORE,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

InReq='Enter weight screw advancement metering for material (mm)'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,MTR_CORE,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

PRINT*, "LOGISTICS/ OPERATIONAL DATA" ; PRINT*,"==========================="

PRINT*,""
!User's input on injection moulding machine acquisition cost

!===========================================================
InReq='Enter injection moulding machine acquisition cost (Currency)'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,MCC,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

!User's input on injection moulding operator/settler salary

!==========================================================
InReq="Enter machine operator's annual salary (Currency)"
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,MPS,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

!User's input on injection moulding cycle time

!=============================================
PRINT*,"Average time for X mouldings is Y" ; PRINT*,""
InReq='Enter X (number of mouldings)'

Imode=.TRUE. ; Iabmode=.TRUE. ; Rabmode=.FALSE. ; Iexmode=.FALSE.
Rexmode=.FALSE. ; IHbnd= 100000 ; ILbnd=1
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,X,RUsInput,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

InReq='Enter Y (sec)'
Imode=.FALSE. ; Iabmode=.FALSE. ; Rabmode=.TRUE. ; Iexmode=.FALSE.
Rexmode=.FALSE. ; RHbnd=10.D10 ; RLbnd=1.D-10
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,Y,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

!User's input on production period related info

!==============================================
InReq='Enter machine capital investment off-set period of production (years)'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,PRP,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

InReq='Enter number of operational weeks per year'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,WeeksYear,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

InReq='Enter number of operational hours per week'
CALL INPUTNUMBER(UnNum,InReq,IUsInput,HoursWeek,IHbnd,ILbnd,RHbnd,RLbnd, &

!Calculations
!============
SC_RATIO=MTR_SKIN/MTR_CORE ; R_X=REAL(X) ; MHY= WeeksYear*HoursWeek

CYCLES=R_X/(Y/3600) ; CHECK1= MHY*CYCLES ; CHECK2=CHECK1*PRP
145
CALL ERRORZERO(CHECK1) ; CALL ERRORZERO(CHECK2)

MACHINE_COSTS=MCC/CHECK2 ; MANPOWER_COSTS=MPS/CHECK1
MATERIAL_COSTS=MTR_CORE*WCON_CORE*PRICE_CORE+MTR_SKIN*WCON_SKIN*PRICE_SKIN
ELSE
MATERIAL_COSTS=MTR_CORE*WCON_CORE*PRICE_CORE
END IF
TOTAL_COST=MATERIAL_COSTS+MACHINE_COSTS+MANPOWER_COSTS
CALL ERRORZERO(TOTAL_COST)
MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION=MATERIAL_COSTS*100/TOTAL_COST
MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION=MACHINE_COSTS*100/TOTAL_COST
MANPOWER_CONTRIBUTION=100-MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION-MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION
WRITE(W_TOTAL_COST,FMT=*) TOTAL_COST ; WRITE(W_MATERIAL_COSTS,FMT=*) MATERIAL_COSTS

WRITE(W_MACHINE_COSTS,FMT=*) MACHINE_COSTS ; WRITE(W_MANPOWER_COSTS,FMT=*)
MANPOWER_COSTS
WRITE(W_MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION,FMT=*) MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION
WRITE(W_MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION,FMT=*) MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION
WRITE(W_MANPOWER_CONTRIBUTION,FMT=*) MANPOWER_CONTRIBUTION
WRITE(W_SC_RATIO,FMT=*) SC_RATIO
CALL COMPLETED_RUN_HDER
PRINT*,"Materials:- ", TRIM(SKIN)," (SKIN) & ", TRIM(CORE)," (CORE)"

PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"SKIN:CORE = ", TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_SC_RATIO))
ELSE
PRINT*,"Material:- ", TRIM(CORE)
END IF
PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"Moulded part's production cost (Currency/part):- ",
TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_TOTAL_COST))
PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"Individual parameters' costs"
PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"Materials (Currency/part):- ", TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MATERIAL_COSTS))
ELSE
PRINT*,"Material (Currency/part):- ", TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MATERIAL_COSTS))
END IF
PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"Machinery (Currency/part):- ", TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MACHINE_COSTS))
PRINT*,""
PRINT*,"Labour (Currency/part):- ", TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MANPOWER_COSTS))
CALL COMPLETED_RUN_FTER(Fmode,FullPathR)
!Store data to report log

!========================
CALL RLOGH_HEADER(Program_name,UnNum,HELP)
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Materials:- ", TRIM(SKIN)," (SKIN) & ", TRIM(CORE),"

(CORE)"
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) ""
146
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "SKIN:CORE RATIO:-"

WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) SC_RATIO
ELSE
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Material:- ", TRIM(CORE)
END IF

WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Moulded part's production cost (Currency/part):-"
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) TOTAL_COST
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Individual parameters' costs"
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Materials (Currency/part):-"
ELSE
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Material (Currency/part):-"
END IF

WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) MATERIAL_COSTS
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Machinery (Currency/part):-"
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) MACHINE_COSTS
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Labour (Currency/part):-"
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) MANPOWER_COSTS
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "Machine Total Operational Time off-setting initial
capital investment (hours):-"
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) MHY*PRP
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "% Contributions (Materials - Machinery - Labour):-"
ELSE
WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "% Contributions (Material - Machinery - Labour):-"
END IF

WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MATERIAL_CONTRIBUTION)),"% - ", &
& TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MACHINE_CONTRIBUTION)),"% -
",TRIM(ADJUSTL(W_MANPOWER_CONTRIBUTION)),"%"

WRITE(UNIT=UnNum, FMT=*) "--- END OF SECTION ---"
CALL REPEAT_EXIT(k,UnNum,Fmode,FullPathR)
END DO
!=================================================================================
END PROGRAM INJ_SGIPT
147
Appendix 4 Cost Calculations
APPENDIX 4 COST CALCULATIONS
Tables 14, 15, 16 list the calculated costs for the production of the “dish” component
with no core breaking through, using the experimental skin and core material
combination samples, current material costs and cycles times equal to single injection
moulding.
Table 14 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% long glass fibre) for
equalised cycle times
R-2.3 28 54 65.85 0.8108 32.99 37.93

R-2.2 32 50 60.97 0.7991 32.01 38.48
R-2.1 36 46 56.10 0.7874 31.00 39.05
R-5.1 38 44 53.66 0.7816 30.49 39.35
R-5.2 40 42 51.22 0.7758 29.96 39.64
R-5.3 42 40 48.78 0.7699 29.43 39.94
R-5.7 43 39 47.56 0.7670 29.16 40.09
Table 15 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin PP with 30% glass fibre) for
equalised cycle times
R-3.3 28 54 65.85 0.6825 20.39 45.06

R-3.2 32 50 60.97 0.6803 20.14 45.20
R-3.1 36 46 56.10 0.6781 19.88 45.35
R-6.1 38 44 53.66 0.6771 19.75 45.42
R-6.7 39 43 52.44 0.6765 19.69 45.46
148
Appendix 4 Cost Calculations
Table 16 Part production costs (Core ABS and Skin LDPE) for equalised cycle times
R-1.3 28 54 65.85 0.6229 12.77 49.37

R-1.2 32 50 60.97 0.6251 13.09 49.19
R-7.4 35 47 57.32 0.6268 13.32 49.06
R-1.1 36 46 56.10 0.6274 13.40 49.02
R-7.1 37 45 54.88 0.6279 13.48 48.97
149
Appendix 5 Cost Difference Function
APPENDIX 5 COST DIFFERENCE FUNCTION
All cost expressions are in ₤ per component.
WGTi  MTRi  WCON i , i  SKIN , CORE ( Equation 1)

Material Costs  WGTi  PRICEi , i  SKIN , CORE ( Equation 2)
i
MCC
MachineCosts  ( Equation 3)
MHY  PRP  CYCLE
MPS
Manpower Costs  ( Equation 4)
MHY  CYCLE
Total Cost  Material Costs  MachineCosts  Manpower Costs ( Equation 5)
COST ( R )  Total CostGIPT  Total CostColour Through ( Function 1)
where:- WGTi [=] weight of material i used in component, MTRi [=] material i
metering value, WCONi [=] material i weight conversion factor, PRICEi [=] material i
purchase price per Kg, MCC [=] the acquisition cost of a moulding machine in ₤,
CYCLE [=] parts per hour, MHY [=] machine operational time in hours per year, PRP
[=] total period of production in years (off-setting initial machine capital investment),
MPS [=] machine operator’s cost of labour in ₤ per hour, COST [=] cost difference
between techniques, R [=] skin to ABS core price ratio and Total CostGIPT ,
Total Cost ColourThrough are based on the analytic expression of equation 5 for each
technique.
Based on equations 1-5, an analytic expression of COST as a function of R can be
obtained as follows:-
 COST  Total CostGIPT  Total CostColour Through 

 
 Equation 5 
150
Appendix 5 Cost Difference Function
 COST  Material Costs  Machine Costs  Manpower Costs 

 
 Equations 1  4 
G  GIPT ; CT  Colour Through ; S  SKIN ; ABS  CORE 
         
 COST  MTRABS  WCON ABS  PRICE ABS  MTRS  WCON S  PRICES  

 
 1  MCCG MCCCT  
 MTRS*  WCON S  PRICES     
 MHY  PRP  CYCLEG CYCLECT 
 
 MPS  1 1  
     
MHY  CYCLEG CYCLECT 
 
 MTRS*  MTRABS  MTRS 
 1 1

 K  CYCLEG  CYCLECT 
 COST  MTRABS  WCON ABS  PRICE ABS  WCON S  PRICES   

 
 1  1  MCCG MCCCT   
       MPS  K  
 MHY  PRP  CYCLEG CYCLECT   
 
 R  WCON S  PRICES  WCON  PRICE  R  WCON  PRICE 
 WCON ABS  PRICE ABS
S S ABS ABS

COST  MTRABS  WCON ABS  PRICE ABS 1  R  

1  1  MCCG MCCCT  
      MPS  K  
MHY  PRP  CYCLEG CYCLECT  
 0.280754+0.001340  1  R   MTRABS , K  0  
 COST  MTRABS , R    
 0.123016+0.001340  1  R   MTRABS , K  0   
 
  MTRS*  MTRABS  MTRS  82 mm  
  Shot volume ABS  45%   MTRABS 37 mm 
  
0.330332  0.0495777  R, K  0 
 COST  R    
0.172594  0.0495777  R, K  0 
The final analytic expressions of function 1, COST  MTRABS , R  and COST  R  ,
have been obtained using the numerical values of individual parameters as listed in
Chapter 10.
151
Appendix 6 Experiments with PET
APPENDIX 6 EXPERIMENTS WITH PET
Temperature’s effect investigation experiments on maximum core material
encapsulation of this research also included the PET black and ABS as core and skin
materials combination respectfully. This material combination however was
abandoned at the early stages of the preliminary experiments because of severe
moulding problems encountered as a result of the excess moisture levels in PET
black.
Temperature and injection speed adjustments did not resolve the problems
encountered for the production of an initially acceptable quality moulding. Samples
were severely damaged during the de-moulding stage and exhibited a brittle behaviour
at the extensive PET black material rich areas. In all core volumetric shots, PET black
was breaking through the ABS skin material and packed fully the mould’s perimeter.
Figure 42 illustrates a typical moulding with the PET black and ABS material
combinations.
Figure 42 A PET black core : ABS skin “dish” moulded sample
152
The brittle behaviour has been identified to be a result of moisture levels in the
literature. PET black was stored in poor conditions for an extended period of time and
it should be noted that the material was left in the dryer for 180 hours after the
moisture levels problem identification. The moulded sample results were not
improved and the material combination was abandoned. This illustrates the
importance of optimum storage conditions against moisture for hydroscopic materials.
Figure 43 illustrates the PET black and ABS layer distributions for a typical moulded
sample.
Figure 43 Materials distribution in a PET black – ABS “dish” moulded sample
Hot streams of vapour penetrated the skin ABS material and the significantly lower
viscosity of PET (as a result of extreme moisture levels) allowed it to occupy mould
volume much faster through these paths and alter the distribution to its favour. This
was also evident even at significantly lower injection speeds of PET. It should be
noted that hydroscopic ABS has not been identified to be an extra source of problems
153
as it was properly dried and exhibited good flow behaviour with the rest material
combination experiments.
Because of its high thermal capacity under constant pressure (packing phase features
relatively stable pressures), water followed a much different cooling pattern than the
polymeric phases and this resulted in the extended de-moulding stage damages for the
component.
154

A Practical and Business Case For GIPT C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Practical and Business Case For GIPT C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A PRACTICAL AND BUSINESS CASE FOR

GIPT CO-INJECTION MOULDING

THEODORE BOURAS - SOULIMAS

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Degree of

Warwick Manufacturing Group

The University of Warwick

(to be bound in front of the submitted Dissertation)

Home Address. …………………………………………………………………….

I wish the dissertation to be considered for (tick one only)

MSc in Engineering Business Management 

I confirm that I have included in my dissertation:

An abstract of the work completed 

I am willing for my marked dissertation to be used for staff training purposes 

Signed: ……………………………………………. Date: ………………..

GIPT is a co-injection moulding based in-mould decoration technology, suitable for

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

The current trend in manufacturing industries towards product personalisation entails

achievable. The exploitation of in-mould decoration (IMD) technologies enables paint

importance to the automotive manufacturing industries.

GIPT is an emerging IMD technology based on the simultaneous co-injection

component that requires no further decorative finish. As a material specific version of

the co-injection moulding, the technique’s success to provide a “Class A” finish,

technological developments on powder coating technologies. Requirements feature a

or superior decorative effect respectfully to alternative IMD technologies. The

technique features advantages as well as disadvantages compared to alternative IMD

techniques such as the through colour mouldings or the in-mould films.

upon the ability to utilise recycled post-industrial thermoplastic materials buried in a

considered as an option, GIPT’s production costs competitiveness lies in the

mould films technique utilisation.

1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

importance with a practical approach as it is sometimes the case in industry when

evaluating the potential exploitation of a certain technology. Considering the GIPT

mechanisms and its potential sources of financial advantages, examination was

the extent of a uniform layer distribution achievable in a relatively complex mould

focused on a single processing parameter’s effect, the skin materials’ processing

geometry chosen, the in-mould film technique was considered to be inapplicable.

initial machinery capital investment and increased process complexity have

previously been identified as a drawback for the wider exploitation of co-injection

moulding technologies and therefore GIPT.

1.2 GUIDE OF SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS

moulding technologies with their applications in industry. Chapter 4 introduces the

co-injection moulding based GIPT technique with a focus on issues concerning

material combinations and implications for a successful in mould decorated product.

environment, its manufacturing aspects with a focus on decoration functions and

and especially GIPT.

Research methodology comprises a separate chapter following the literature review

environment is explained and defined. Chapter 7 also includes a separate section

methods used. Subsequent chapters include a complete experimental approach

description, the research results and their discussion.

Chapter 12 lists the author’s suggestions on further research necessary to be

CHAPTER 2 INJECTION MOULDING

great variety of commercial polymeric materials. The technology is capable of

producing high precision, three dimensional polymeric material parts at high

moulding, each suitable for specific market applications.

2.1 STANDARD INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS

Injection moulding is a semi-continuous cyclic process [2]. The polymeric material in

down to a desired shape.

Significantly lower speeds can result in increased injection pressure requirements

called “fountain flow” pattern illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Schematic of fountain flow in mould filling [3], [5]

shrinkage, should assist the close as possible to design mould dimensional

squared part’s wall thickness [7].

2.2 INJECTION MOULDING MACHINE COMPONENTS