Troubleshooting: Injection Molding Seven Steps

Toward Scientific Troubleshooting

A scientific troubleshooter is not someone who pushes
buttons faster or has more tricks up his or her sleeve.
Click Image to Enlarge

All troubleshooters must document the process. A trail of documentation, beginning

when the process was established and approved, that continues to build as the
process is adjusted, creates a portfolio of information to draw upon when trouble
arises.

With accurate knowledge about which processing parameters have changed, the
scientific troubleshooter can begin to make changes to return the process outputs to
the documented standard.

The scientific troubleshooter documents the process outputs, such as melt

temperature, when acceptable parts are produced.
A scientific troubleshooter is not someone who pushes buttons
faster or has more tricks up his or her sleeve. Rather, a scientific
troubleshooter knows the history of a properly documented process,
makes each adjustment based on knowledge, and verifies and
documents the result of each change.
Good troubleshooting does not begin when a non-conformance
occurs. It starts prior to first-piece-approval. If you are more of a
traditional troubleshooter—one who has little use for process
documentation, makes adjustments based on learned behavior, and
does not verify the effectiveness of each change—you might want
to adjust your approach. Here are seven steps to get you going:
STEP 1—SCIENTIFIC MOLDING
Merriam-Webster defines science as “the state of knowing.” The
purpose of establishing a scientific process is to create the most
stable and reliable process possible, based on good fundamental
knowledge of the mold, machine, material, and process.
You are likely familiar by now with terms such as “Decoupled
Molding,” “Intelligent Molding,” or “Scientific Molding.” To demystify
these terms: Each methodology applies to a process that separates
first-stage filling from second-stage packing by using a short-shot
during injection. In each case, the intent is to build a strong, reliable
process that best compensates for the inherent variability of plastics
and thus reduces the overall need for troubleshooting. Although
there are many factors that contribute to a good process, these
attributes are most common:
 Filling: First-stage fill uses velocity control to inject with as few
velocity steps as possible. There must be adequate maximum
pressure to avoid a pressure-limited process. First-to-second
stage transfer should take place using screw position. The part
should have a visible short shot at this time.
 Packing: Second-stage packing pressure should be high enough
to finish filling the mold cavity and compensate for material
shrinkage during cooling. This pressure is traditionally 50% to
75% of the pressure used during the first stage, though it can
drop as low as 25% for some thick parts and may exceed 100%
for many thin-walled parts. Second-stage packing time should be
determined by graphing part weight versus second-stage time.
The optimal second stage time is the time at which the part
weight does not increase with an increase in second-stage time.
 Recovery: Screw delay or decompression must be used prior to
screw recovery to relieve the packing pressure. Screw recovery
should take approximately 80% of the cooling time. Screw
decompression must be used after recovery whenever a check
ring is used. For most screws, the optimal amount of
decompression is equal to the check-ring travel.

STEP 2—DOCUMENT PROCESS OUTPUTS

The traditional troubleshooter documents the process inputs, which
are machine-specific parameters that are entered into the machine.
The scientific troubleshooter documents the process outputs, which
are the results of the process when acceptable parts are produced.
Many of these parameters are the same as the process input, but
each of these parameters would be consistent from one machine to
another.
Examples of machine-independent process parameters include
melt temperature, coolant temperature entering and leaving the
mold, coolant flow, first-stage fill time, first-stage fill weight, second-
stage packing time, second-stage plastic pressure, gate-seal time,
cooling time, plastic backpressure, screw recovery time, overall
cycle time, final part weight, clamp tonnage, and dewpoint. You can
also document any important information such as photographs,
observations, and quality information.

STEP 3—RULE OUT OBVIOUS CAUSES

Once a non-conformance occurs, the first thing to do is to
thoroughly inspect the part to make sure that other defects are not
present. If any aspect of the process, mold, machine, or material is
obviously suspect, then this should be investigated first.
For example, let’s suppose a part may have flash. With only this
information, the traditional troubleshooter might investigate the
clamp tonnage, transfer position, packing pressure, or barrel
temperatures. Now, let’s assume further inspection by the scientific
troubleshooter, which determines that the part also has splay. With
this additional information, it may be possible to suppose that both
the flash and splay could be the result of moisture in the material.

STEP 4—ACTUAL VS. ‘IDEAL’ PROCESSES

Once obvious causes are ruled out, the next logical step is to
compare the current process with the documented standard. Since
a well-documented process contains a variety of parameters, it is
best to start by reviewing the parameters that most likely relate to
your defect. As you compare the documented standard to the
current process, you will determine which aspects of the process
have deviated from the standard. A scientific troubleshooter can
use this information to help make educated decisions about what
parameters need to be changed to bring the process back to the
documented standard.
For example, if the part is showing material degradation, you should
first compare actual vs. documented parameters such as melt
temperature, backpressure, and first-stage injection time. Likewise,
if flash, short shots, or sinks are present, it is best to turn off
second-stage packing to verify all the process outputs related to
injection such as first-stage fill time, first- stage fill weight, and
plastic pressure at transfer from first to second stage.

STEP 5—RETURN TO STANDARD PROCESS

With accurate knowledge about which processing parameters have
changed, the scientific troubleshooter can begin to make changes
to return the process outputs to the documented standard. Always
be careful of related process parameters. For example, if the first-
stage fill time is too high and the first-stage fill weight is too low,
then an increase in the injection speed may bring both parameters
back to the documented standard.
The goal here is not to just fix the defect, but to return the machine-
independent process outputs back to the documented standard.
When steps 1 and 2 are conducted properly, the scientific
troubleshooter has confidence that the parts will be acceptable
when the process is returned to the documented standard, if the
mold, machine, and material are behaving properly. This
troubleshooting method will also help the scientific troubleshooter to
quickly identify and isolate a problem with the equipment or
material.

STEP 6—VERIFY THE PART & PROCESS

After the parts are brought into conformance, it is best to ensure
that the part and process conform to the standard. This means the
scientific troubleshooter should take a few minutes to check each of
the parameters that are easy to verify. It may be impractical to
check every process output, but any information that is easily
obtained, such as first-stage fill time, first-stage fill weight, cycle
time, and cooling time, will help increase the confidence that the
process will remain stable and reliable over time.

STEP 7—DOCUMENT ALL CHANGES

This is one step any troubleshooter—scientific or traditional—
should take. A trail of documentation, beginning when the process
was established and approved, that continues to build as the
process is adjusted, creates a portfolio of information to draw upon
when trouble arises. A scientific troubleshooter should be able to
see the full history of the process, machine, and mold. For example,
if an employee on the first shift corrected the process by increasing
transfer position, this would be invaluable information for the
second-shift technician who encounters a defective part such as a
sink.
If a systematic approach to processing and documentation is used
when the process is established, a scientific troubleshooter will be
able to correct the problem in a relatively short time with a
significantly high degree of confidence. Ultimately, good
troubleshooting is just an extension of good processing. The more
effectively your technicians and engineers process and document
what they do, the more efficiently they will troubleshoot when non-
conformances occur.