Injection molding is typically utilised for mass-produced goods. Its primary application is in manufacturing processes that require rapid production of numerous identical objects.
The primary benefit of injection molding is its capacity for mass production. After the initial investment, the unit cost of injection molding is low. When additional components are created, the unit cost typically decreases significantly.
In contrast to conventional production methods such as CNC milling, which wastes a significant amount of a plastic block or sheet, the scrap rate for injection molding is relatively low. This is a disadvantage in comparison to additive manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, which offer even lower scrap rates. The four primary sources of plastic waste in injection molding are the sprue, the runners, the gates, and any flash, or excess plastic that escapes the part cavity. A thermoset material, such as an epoxy resin that solidifies when exposed to air, cannot be melted once cured. Thermoplastics, on the other hand, are plastics that can be melted, cooled, and remelted without igniting. Thermoplastics are recyclable and reusable indefinitely. Occasionally, such an occurrence may occur on the manufacturing floor. All ineffective sprues, runners, and scrap are ground into a fine powder. The material is returned to its original state before injection molds are pressed. This material is characterised by the term “regrind.” Usually, quality assurance departments limit the amount of reclaimed paper that can be recycled into the press. (Some of the performance properties of the plastic can decrease with repeated molding) Or, if they have a substantial amount, they can sell it to a different factory that will reuse it as regrind. In general, regrind is reserved for low-quality components that do not require exceptional durability or strength.
As a final advantage, injection molding is consistent with regard to uniformity. Consequently, the second component you manufacture will be nearly identical to the first, and so on. This is an excellent trait when mass-producing a product under a specific brand with a particular set of components.
With injection molding, even a minor manufacturing delay can significantly impact a company’s bottom line and supply chain. Although there is little room for error, the consequences are significant. Generally, design, testing, and tooling requirements result in high initial costs. Getting the design right the first time for mass production is crucial, although this is easier than it initially appears: (1) design and then prototype the part itself, typically using a 3D printer and a different material; (2) design an injection mold tool for an initial production round, to generate 300-1,000 prototypes; and (3) refine every detail in injection molded prototypes prior to mass production. This remains an excellent option for specific projects, but only if the appropriate voices of experience are included. Another issue is the high price of tools. Injection molding is a multi-step process, and tooling is a distinct undertaking. Before mass production, designing and creating a prototype of an injection-molded object (probably via CNC or 3D printing) is necessary. The subsequent step is to create a mold tool prototype that will allow for mass production of duplicates of the component. Injection molding is the final step and frequently follows two phases of rigorous testing. Before a tool is ready for mass production, it requires significant time and resources to undergo multiple prototypes and modifications. A prototype injection molding tool is an uncommon practice. It still occurs, typically for components manufactured using a multi-cavity tool. Steel (a very durable material) and aluminium are frequently employed in the construction of tools, making modifications difficult. By removing metal from the chamber of the tool, plastic can be introduced to the component. When removing plastic, it is necessary to reduce the size of the tool chamber by filling it with aluminium or metal. This is exceptionally challenging and, in some instances, may necessitate scrapping the tool (or a portion of the tool) and starting from scratch. Occasionally, the undesirable hole can be filled by welding metal into place. In addition, injection molding necessitates uniform wall thickness. In cross-section, the wall thickness of the Panasonic mold at the top is roughly 2 to 3 mm throughout. Sink marks and other issues caused by unequal cooling are less likely to appear on thinner walls. As a general rule, wall thickness should not exceed 4 mm. There will be more material waste, a longer cycle time, and a higher cost per unit if the wall thickness is increased. If the wall thickness is less than about 1 millimetre, however, you may encounter filling difficulties (resulting in gaps or short shots). Engineers and designers can mitigate this risk by employing a material with a higher melt flow index, such as nylon, whose walls can be as thin as 0.5 mm. Certain manufacturing techniques, such as computer numerical control, do not require uniform wall thickness. Lastly, injection molding cannot be used to create extremely large products in a single piece. The equipment and tools for injection molding can only accommodate a limited range of item sizes. The shopping carts at Target are a prime example of a substantial injection-molded component. There is a technology that can shape very large components (such as 1,000-ton presses about the size of a train caboose), but it is prohibitively expensive. Due to the limitations of typical injection molding machines, it is customary to construct large objects by assembling smaller ones. Regarding product size, 3D printing is inferior to CNC machines. Large 3D-printed objects are typically constructed from multiple pieces and glued together, whereas the size of the milling machine bed constrains the CNC. Large undercuts are only possible to avoid with professional design and may increase the project’s final cost.
Prior to initiating an injection molding production run, it is essential to consider the following factors. First, determine the point at which injection molding becomes more cost-effective than other manufacturing techniques. The next step is to estimate the production volume at which your initial investment will yield a profit (consider the costs of design, testing, production, assembly, marketing, and distribution, as well as the expected price point for sales). Next, add a cushion of protection. In addition, remember to include the cost of admission. The preparation of a product for injection molding production is a costly endeavour. This is an important consideration, so examine it carefully. Next, ensure that the component is designed for injection molding. Early efforts to reduce complexity by simplifying geometry and the number of components will bear fruit in the long run. When creating the mould tool, eliminating manufacturing defects should be the primary design objective. Consider gate placement and employ simulations made possible by moldflow software. The duration of each cycle is also important. Make every effort to decrease the cycle time. Advantageous here are both hot runner technology and well-planned tooling. Even a small cycle time reduction can substantially impact manufacturing costs when millions of units must be produced. Assembly is an integral part of the manufacturing process. During the design phase, the product’s assembly time should be minimised. Southeast Asia’s dominance in the global injection molding industry is primarily due to the region’s low labour costs. If the assembly can be avoided during the design phase, labour costs can be reduced significantly.
Injection molding is ideally suited for mass production of finished goods. This is also advantageous for fully functional prototypes that undergo consumer and/or product testing. 3D printing is more cost-effective and flexible for early-stage product concepts than for later production phases.
For more information, visit https://www.supplywise.co.za/