“At the end of the day, we are trying to produce the most repeatable parts in the fastest, most repeatable time, and the second stage speed setting is an often-overlooked influence on the process. Knowing how your machines respond to this input is one more step toward being better than the next molder.”

Read More

Andy Nicholls, Training Manager at RJG said, “This award is recognition of the way my team engages the trainees in the many training courses RJG offers to increase their skill levels.  When it is voted on by the industry, it is a reflection on the professionalism of our trainers and how they pass on their industry knowledge to increase the skills in our sector.  We are looking to build on this success in 2019 with an increased range of courses on offer.”

“Experts whose intimate knowledge and expertise in the corporate, cultural, financial and legal arenas are redefining our industry,” says Jake Robson, Group Editor of The ACQ5. “The 2018 ACQ5 Global Award winners represent the best of breed in all industry sectors and have earned these honours by standing out in a group of very impressive finalists. We are lucky enough to work with some of the most influential and enterprising private organisations in the world and are proud to share their message with our readers. Relying on reader insight and experience to provide nominations to the panel remains the cornerstone of our program and to identify industry leaders, individuals, teams and organisations that represent the benchmark of achievement and best practice in the business world.”

The ACQ5 Global Awards honour the leading teams, firms and professionals whose activities set the standard for their markets. This year, companies and individuals representing every major market in the world became finalists for the awards.

“Operating a legitimately independent nomination process, our award winners are chosen by our readership. Every year, we seek the assistance of our readers, the industry itself, in recognising industry leaders, eminent individuals, exemplary teams and distinguished businesses, which we believe represent the benchmark of achievement and best practice in a variety of fields – and every year, we turn to them to help as we strive to recognise an ever-widening spectrum of services, markets, industries and organisations that serve our global market place. We believe that by consulting our readers, we can better identify the groups that are confronting the issues which face us at this ongoing complex juncture, and our awards will rise above the status of participation certificate and actually be an endorsement of their work.” Robson continued.

ACQ Global Awards’ objective, as always, is: “To gather quantitative and qualitative information from and about the sector to be able to give a set of “Best of” awards. We founded the ACQ Global Awards program to empower end users to make smarter, more confident decisions.”

“One of the industry’s favourite awards events was right to anticipate another record-breaking number of votes! The total number of nominations received stood at an amazing 98,621 our highest ever.

“Our poll was not only designed to reflect actual performance in any particular area of expertise, it was also aimed to reflect direct market share based on a number of criteria. Voters were encouraged to base their decisions on addressing professionalism: experience, value for money & responsiveness in order for ACQ to derive a numerical rating from 1 – 5. In that sense, this poll should be considered a reflection of how professionals view any practice, individual or related sector supplier in terms of overall quality of service.”

Only nominees receiving an average 4-star rating or above achieved a short-list status.

All Award Winners for the ACQ5 Global Awards are hereby released in the annual ACQ5 Global Awards 2018 publication.

About ACQ5

For more information, please visit www.ACQ5.com or contact ACQ5 at +44 (0)871 218 2470.

In May of 2016, the Medical OEM Consortium (MOEMC) formed. A group of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) set out to discover a more efficient part validation process for injection molding. They executed and formally documented their results. By creating a “Part Process”, molders are able to replicate transferable plastic conditions that eliminate the need to 100% re-validate the tool every time it is moved to a new machine. This new technique has the potential to save molders millions of dollars and thousands of hours of inefficient downtime annually.

Today, the findings from the proof of concept are officially released in the format of a technical white paper, available for download on RJG’s website. The white paper, entitled “Part Process” Transferability Using a Machine Independent Variable (MIV) Methodology for Multiple Machines, walks through the methods, materials, results and conclusions of the Consortium’s research. Through the execution of this discovery exercise, the MOEMC has provided a broadened perspective on the acceptance of the “part process” method to allow the transfer of molds in the medical device industry as a practical alternate standard.

Traditionally, a part must be re-validated every time the mold is going to run in a different machine, especially in high precision applications that are found in medical devices. This costs millions of dollars a year and leads to weeks or months of machine downtime, leading to lost revenue for both the OEM and molder. By creating a process that can be successfully transferred from machine to machine based on a reduced verification run, molders can save millions and greatly reduce or eliminate machine downtime. Also, there is an increased assurance that the methods used can help reduce and mitigate risk based on data-driven decisions (using available technology) that can help drive continuous improvements and sustain the required statistical control.

“This is the future of Medical Molding,” said Scott Scully, Director, Corporate Molding/Tooling at Terumo Cardiovascular Systems. “For too long, the cost of full validation to move a mold has kept the industry handcuffed and has thwarted OEMs to move quickly on unexpected schedule demands. To remain competitive, we must change to validating the ‘Part Process’ instead of the ‘Machine Process’. Those who do will out-compete those who don’t.”

“What was amazing to watch was that the SQE/Quality Team really engaged to learn about the molding process and understand its effect on the dimensional results,” said Matt Therrien, Business Development Manager at RJG. “At the end of the Consortium, they were the most passionate about explaining the benefits of the newfound data-driven approach.”

”Over the past 15-20 years, the injection molding industry has experienced amazing progress in process technology,” said Paul Robinson, Lead QA/RA Compliance Consultant at Quality System Consulting Services (QSCS). “The ability to model, monitor and control injection molding has improved exponentially. As a result, I recommend looking for opportunities to drive efficiency by taking a hard look at some of the examples of reasons for revalidation in section 6.4 from GHTF/SG3/N99-10:2004 (Edition 2) Quality Management Systems – Process Validation Guidance:

“The need for revalidation should be evaluated and documented.  This evaluation should include historical results from quality indicators, product changes, process changes, changes in external requirements (regulations or standards) and other such circumstances.  

“Revalidation may not be as extensive as the initial validation if the situation does not require that all aspects of the original validation be repeated.  If a new piece of equipment is purchased for a validated process, obviously the IQ portion of the validation needs to be repeated.  However, most of the OQ aspects are already established.  Some elements of PQ may need to be repeated, depending on the impact of the new equipment.”

Abstract:

In the medical device molding industry, manufacturing plastic parts in multiple machines requires expensive and time-consuming validations for each injection molding machine (IMM). Here we employ a Machine Independent Variable (MIV) method to effectively and efficiently transfer a validated “part process” across four distinctly different IMMs. Critical to Quality (CTQ) results for each transfer were required to meet Ppk targets to match the CTQs of the initial validation. Our results show the MIV transfer method, verified with eDART^® technology, can be used to replicate plastic parts in different IMMs with negligible part variation (dimensional results), using selected capable machines. The data-driven results provided by this lean systematic method are more robust, faster to obtain and more cost effective than the traditional single machine approach.

Download the White Paper

A journey through the creation of the Design Pod

By Jeremy Williams, Consultant/Trainer

RJG is known industry-wide for its Master Molder™ class and eDART^® System, but do you know about our TZERO^® program? Often the name can throw people for a loop, so let me start by explaining its origins.

For those of you who are familiar with mold building, T0 is the first time a mold sees plastic after it is designed and manufactured. In our industry, rarely does the mold or part meet all of its requirements at T0. On a regular basis, gates must be enlarged, vents added, or steel groomed. Unfortunately, this leads to T1, or the second trial for the mold. Often times there are days or weeks between T0 and T1 depending on the complexity and quantity of changes needed. We have seen molds reach T10 or higher before they get through the validation protocol (PPAP or IQ/OQ/PQ).

In order to better explain what TZERO does, I will walk you through the process we went through in order to create the Design POD. The Design POD is a tool used to show the effects of both good and poor design practices, which can yield typical molding non-conformities. Here are the typical 7 steps TZERO walks through before the steel is even cut to ensure good parts are made from the very first shot.

1. Part Design

Early on in the project, it’s important to think about how the raw material will be converted into its final form. If this is not considered, then there can be costly delays in the program reaching launch.

One purpose of the Design POD is to create a training aid for the Part Design and Mold Design course that would promote good manufacturing processes (GMP), while showing common mistakes. Below in Image 1 is the first sketch of what that product might look like. Let’s just say the napkin sketch needed a “few minor modifications” before moving forward.

2. Print

The next step is to ensure that the needs are met by providing a print or drawing that communicates the requirements to the mold builder and the molder.

This is often overlooked and can be detrimental if not properly evaluated for GMP drawing practices, datums, tolerances, accuracy, color, etc. shown above in Image 2.

When all of the details are not called out properly, it can lead to confusion of what the designer needs and how the mold maker or molder interprets the drawing. This doesn’t mean that it must be a critical dimension, but it must be identified so that it can be measured to ensure that it meets specification limits.

Our advice is to not leave it to chance—if it’s important to the product, clearly identify the requirement. Otherwise, there could be a costly and time-consuming engineering change to follow.

3. Material Selection

“Just select a plastic, it will be fine.” We hear this a lot from designers, but it’s not their fault in many circumstances. They don’t understand that just because we can find a plastic that will meet the flexural, load, or temperature requirements doesn’t mean that we can use it. Not all materials are suited for injection molding, so a careful evaluation of the material properties might reveal that it’s meant for an extrusion or blow molding application, which will create major difficulties with injection molding.

In this application, there were several areas that needed to be considered. First, the living hinge design would dictate that we need a high MFI (Melt Flow Index) polypropylene (PP) to ensure proper hinge function.

Next on the list was working with the marketing department, which is always a “favorite” of engineers. The Design POD required a very specific brand color that needed to blend with the Pinnacle PP 1335 Z with an MFI of 35 g/10min that was being sourced through Ashley Resins. After a couple of trials for color matching, marketing selected UN66083 Fresh Green from Clariant.

4. Simulation

Simulation is a powerful tool to help us understand and predict what will occur during the molding process. It can give an insight into some potential assembly or secondary operations that could be negatively impacted based on the molded product. It’s important to use simulation as a predictive tool so that the part design, material, or mold can be modified before the first shots occur. There are many areas that simulation can be used to look at pressures, temperatures, warp, and a host of other areas. For this part, the thin living hinge section (0.406 mm or 0.016 in.) and transition from thick (3.00 mm or 0.118 in.) to thin (0.75 mm or 0.0296 in.) were areas of the highest concern. We needed to understand where the end of fill would occur so a sensor could be properly placed to detect short shots during molding. We understood all limitations and made design changes accordingly. Below in Image 3, we can see the simulation model with the part, full hot runner system, and water.

Simulation can also predict the cavity pressure where the sensors can be placed, thus allowing a template to be transferred between the simulation package(s) and the eDART^®.

5. Mold Design

Selecting the right mold designer and builder is another critical step in the process. Each has a niche market in which they excel. For this project, we had small details, moderately tight tolerances, complex mold requirements in a tight space, and (as always) a tight deadline. We chose to partner with Ameritech Die and Mold in North Carolina because of their high-quality molds and proximity to RJG’s Hangar facility in the region, where the mold would live out its days.

With the preliminary work done with simulations, we were able to provide Ameritech with hot runner sizes, water line designs, and sensor locations to help reduce design iterations on their end.

Above in Image 4, we can see the final mold design after a single design review meeting. The mold contains five cavity pressure sensors, two Thermocouples, and one Mold Deflection sensor. This design will be utilized for R&D purposes over the coming years at RJG.

Due to the living hinges, we had to ensure the polymer chain orientation during fill was perpendicular to the living hinge, otherwise we would likely yield a single use hinge (which was not design intent).

6. Molding Machine

It would be ideal if our single cavity, single gated part only had to ever run in one machine, wouldn’t it? However, we live in reality and this is rarely the case in molding. The scheduler needs the flexibility to run a mold in at least two machines, if not more.

Knowing this information at the onset of a project helps to provide a more accurate representation of what is needed for the long haul. Without it, production could be backed into a corner with only a single machine to run production in. This could cause missed shipments for a multitude of reason. Given the JIT (Just in Time) environment that molders are forced into on a regular occasion, this is not the ideal situation.

In this circumstance, we have to design for the least capable machine. Regularly, we have a new electric machine and a vintage hydraulic. We cannot take these at face value and presume the electric always has the highest capability.

There are many other areas that must be considered, but these are starting points:

1. Injection Pressure
2. Injection Volume
3. Injection Flow Rate
4. Tonnage

A line-by-line comparison of each machine is the best method to match the correct mold and machine. Otherwise, Murphy or Karma are likely to rear their unwelcome faces. Image 5 shows the two machines side by side. We can see that the highlighted fields create a virtual machine that has the lowest possible capabilities.

7. Processing

Given the material, challenging thin wall geometry, and machine capability, we simulated both Decoupled II and III processes to determine which would be the best for all of these factors. Simulation will not allow us to transfer from the fill phase to pack via cavity pressure, but it does allow us to transfer when the cavity is 100% full by volume and, in turn, closely replicate a Decoupled III process.

Above in Image 6 is an example of running a Decoupled II process with a fill time of 0.63 seconds and fill only transferring when the cavity is 92% full by volume.

With a slow flow rate, varying wall thickness, and multiple changes in geometry, the process yielded high injection pressure, elevated tonnage, and a short shot that could not be influenced during the pack phase.

Through multiple iterations, we determined there was a process window to produce parts within all the constraints, but that the window was narrow at best.

The objective was to demonstrate the effects of poor design on manufacturing. In this case, we hit the nail on the head with nearly every molding defect represented in a 48-second cycle.

Conclusion

We can see through these seven stages that TZERO collaborated with designers, marketing, material suppliers, machine manufactures, mold makers, and more to create a viable product that met everyone’s needs. The final product does not look a lot like the initial napkin sketch, but through a rigorous evaluation, we were able to create the final product seen in Image 7.

The focus of TZERO is to be a single source solutions provider for plastic injection molded parts by evaluating all aspects from the plastic’s point of view. Our goal is to minimize mold trials, reducing the amount of time and money required to reach validation.

We get involved as early as the napkin sketch stage but can step in at any point from design through manufacturing to help push the product over the finish line.

In September of this year, RJG launched their first ever eLearning course, Math for Molders. Math for Molders provides foundational math skills practice needed both in the field and for more advanced RJG courses.

This online eLearning course allows students to complete each module at their own pace, including the option to replay sections as needed, and takes an average of nine to ten hours to complete. There are eight units in the course with multiple interactive modules in each that include videos, animations and practice activities. Utilizing real scenarios, molders will be more prepared to calculate data, enabling them to match mold requirements with appropriate machines and avoid common defects while preventing mold and machine damage.

Some course highlights include:

• Area: calculate area of various shapes and calculate total projected area at parting line
• Ratios: calculate ratios used in screw design and intensification ratios for hydraulic machines
• Volume: calculate volumetric shot size and barrel capacity using a volume formula triangle

“We’re excited to be able to provide a new delivery method for math instruction where molders work their way through the course on their own time frames,” said Margaret Weinzapfel, co-creator of Math for Molders – eLearning. “Instead of being pulled away for a full day at a time for classroom instruction, participants can advance their math skills a bit at a time over the course of a few days or a few weeks as their schedules allow.”

RJG will no longer be offering face-to-face Math for Molders classes in English. Until other languages are available in the eLearning course, consultants are able to provide in-plant training in Spanish, Mandarin, German and French. RJG hopes to complete Spanish, British English (metric) and Mandarin versions sometime in the next year.

For more information and to register for the class, please visit:

https://rjginc.com/courses/math-for-molders-elearning

RJG, Inc. held their first Mold Design class in March of this year. The goal of offering this course is to provide mold makers, design engineers and molders with the common language and core knowledge required to design injection molds that exceed time, cost and quality requirements.

Mold Design is meant to bridge the gap between part and mold designs. The course incorporates good manufacturing practices through the use of simulations and discussions around preventing molding defects before projects ever get to the molding stage. Other topics covered include:

• • Fundamental material characteristics

• • Necessary processing techniques

• • Molding non-conformities

There was a need for a Mold Design course due to that fact that the baby-boomer generation has begun to exit the workforce. With them, they take vast amounts of tribal knowledge about how to effectively engineer parts or molds for the plastic injection molding industry.

“Given our current economic mentality of better, faster and cheaper, companies rarely have the luxury for new engineers to learn those tough lessons,” said Jeremy Williams, Trainer/Consultant at RJG. “Through combining the experience of both RJG and industry leaders, we created this course to bridge the gap between recent college graduates and seasoned industry veterans.”

“This class was a great experience that really tied together many concepts and ideas we encounter on a daily basis,” said Chuck Hampston, Project Engineer at Extreme Tool. “To couple factual basis, industry-proven experience and RJG’s scientific perspective together with hands-on exercises and real-world discussion was extremely valuable.”

https://rjginc.com/product/mold-design-for-injection-molding/?attribute_pa_language=english&attribute_pa_location=rjg-inc-gibsonville-nc&attribute_dates=02%2F12%2F2019+-+02%2F14%2F2019

RJG’s new 6 mm cavity pressure sensor will be released to the public on April 3, 2017. The 6 mm sensor is ideal for high cavitation molds with small, tightly packed ejector pins. It allows customers to measure cavity pressure in order to improve quality and reduce costs.

There will be two models available, one rated to 50 pounds for use with the ejector pins up to 2 mm diameter, and another rated to 250 pounds for pins up to 4.5 mm diameter. The 50 pound model will be available on April 3, and the 250 pound model will be available in the coming months.

The 6 mm sensor is a robust, indirect (under the pin) pressure sensor that works in conjunction with the eDART System™ to assist molders in diagnosing processes and automatically sorting suspect parts. The 6 mm sensor head is the smallest strain gage sensor available, permitting the use in molds that may have tight clusters of pins with limited room.

The new model is designed with a sensor head that matches the dimension and installation pocket of the Piezoelectric 9211 6 mm button. That means it contains all of the capability of the Piezo at a more cost effective price—approximately 20% below comparable Piezo Multi-Channel Systems. Unlike Piezo, though, the connector cables can be bent and folded without damage, making them more flexible and easier to maneuver around obstacles.

Features of the 6 mm sensor include:

• 6 mm diameter and height
• Flexible, robust, order-to-length cables
• Not susceptible to moisture or contamination

“Smaller sensors are becoming more popular as part complexity and cavitation increases,” said Mike Groleau, Project Manager at RJG. “Our new sensor provides an alternative to the current Piezo technology that reduces cost while improving data reliability.”

The 6 mm sensor is part of RJG’s Multi-Channel Strain Gage sensor line, which was designed to simplify in-mold installations for molds with four or more sensors and save real estate in the mold. This multi-channel cavity pressure solution, unique to RJG, allows injection molders to connect up to eight strain gage sensors to one connection point on the mold.

Learn More

RJG, Inc. will be opening up a new training facility in Gibsonville, North Carolina in December to accommodate the large demand for training in the injection molding industry. RJG is working alongside ZAG Equipment Sales, who is providing them with space in their facility as well as access to several used injection molding machines.

RJG’s new, 3,000 square foot training facility is equipped with seven presses from ZAG’s used equipment inventory. The facility includes a classroom that seats 22 students, an office, and a lab for hands-on training. Marty Key, certified trainer and master molder, will be the head trainer, and Brad Harvey will be the lab technician.

The first course at the North Carolina Training Center will be Systematic Molding and will be held on December sixth through the eighth of this year. A wide range of other courses will also be offered, including the highly sought-after Master Molder courses. Master Molder I and II are designed to help process technicians, engineers and managers better understand and demonstrate injection molding skills at the machine.

By providing RJG with injection molding machines and auxiliary equipment, ZAG plans to greatly increase their overall industry presence. Both RJG and ZAG recognize the need for the training site to both address educational requirements and raise awareness of the used capital equipment industry. This collaborative effort will further strengthen the injection molding industry by providing world-class support and educating molders on how to make quality parts.

“We believe it’s good for the industry to have more training opportunities, and we’re happy to have the new training center in our territory,” said Tim Gould, president of ZAG Equipment Sales and co-owner of Fordham Plastics.

“The demand for injection molding training is higher than ever,” said Gary Chastain, consulting and training manager at RJG. “By opening a third facility in the US, we’re able to offer more Master Molder courses and help even more professionals around the world make high quality parts.”

About ZAG Equipment Sales:

In partnership with its sister company, Fordham Plastics Equipment Co., ZAG Equipment Sales serves plastics manufacturers throughout the industry with high-quality new and used injection molding machines. Both companies are co-owned and operated by Scott Zuber, Tim Gould and Doug Miller.