Primer - Switching from metals to plastics by: Zan Smith, Charles McChesney and Ken Fletcher Ticona LLC

- Summit N. J. The use of plastics in place of metals is helping many manufacturers maintain profit margins as costs and competition increase. These manufacturers are finding that the switch also improves products, gets them to the market faster, reduces total finished assembly costs, and often combines production of many parts into one economical step. This article identifies basic steps and requirements to conduct an efficient, successful conversion to plastics, reviewing the metal - replacement design process from concept to production. Discussions address the benefits of metals replacement, how to select the design team, key considerations of the conceptual design process, plastic issues, part and mold tool design, and overall tooling, fabrication, initial part design, and prototyping. The emphasis is on injection molding because it is the major process that is used in metals replacement. I. Tap Opportunities, Solve Problems Plastics compete successfully with metals because they often eliminate expensive secondary manufacturing steps required of metals and they provide greater design flexibility. This yields parts consolidation and reduces total production time. As a result, the use of plastics to replace metals is becoming an essential strategy in key markets that include: Automotive - Plastics reduce weight, resist corrosion by alternative fuels when metals cannot, and cut costs through parts consolidation and replacement of stamped metal body components. These benefits are being extended from automobiles to heavy trucks, tractors, diesel and marine engines, and recreational vehicles, as well as to small engines that power a wide range of equipment such as lawn mowers and electrical generators. Medical devices - Plastics are increasingly replacing stainless steel and other metals in high-cost instruments and multi-use surgical equipment. The flexibility of plastics allows manufacturers to bring new medical devices to market quickly.

Electrical equipment - Advanced plastics lower assembly costs by cutting production times and eliminating the need for separate insulating components. The benefits of plastics include: C Greater design freedom, e.g., part complexity C Opportunity for parts consolidation C Fewer assembly operations C Reduced secondary finishing, e.g., machining C Weight reduction C Reduction in total system costs C Broad range of properties tailored to specific applications C Ability to withstand temperatures to more than 500F C Ability to withstand most chemicals and corrosive environments In these and other uses, metals replacement is advantageous mainly due to the plastic's long-term predictability of performance properties over a wide range of temperatures and environments. Indeed, some high-performance plastics withstand continuous temperatures of more than 500F, resist most chemicals, and provide strengths comparable to many cast metals. Some other advantages of plastics are: Made in many colors Obviating the need to paint parts Electrically non-conductive Insulation from electrical shock Good thermal insulators Warm to the touch C Poor sound transmitters Tend to muffle noise

There is tremendous potential in metals replacement - plastics have tapped only an estimated 15 percent of their capability to replace metals. This is particularly so due to the newer high-performance plastics, the increasing sophistication of alloying and blending technologies, and the use of computer-aided design and engineering systems. These products and systems enable engineers to visualize and design complex parts, and mold tools more efficiently and faster than ever before. Key advantages of Diecast Metal versus Plastics: C 3 times the strength and 8 times the stiffness C Higher thermal and electrical conductivities C Inherent flame retardance
2

Key advantages of Plastics versus Diecast Metal: C Lower specific gravity C Molded-in colors C Good insulation properties C Greater design flexibility

II. A Conversion Road Map Materials selection, part design, tool design, and fabrication processes are all important in product design. They should be repeatedly evaluated as the component evolves from concept to production. All areas influence each other and should be worked on concurrently. For example, tooling and processing choices determine the makeup of the design team (Figure 1). A metals-replacement effort begins by evaluating the factors that shaped the original manufacturing method, how the assembly is manufactured, the assemblys function, and the operating environment. These general considerations lead to preliminary system concepts. Decisions on specific components evolve from these concepts, especially preliminary decisions on materials, part design, tooling, and processing. Part design is then refined and prototypes are made from one or more plastic. Prototype testing leads to design refinements, final materials selection, and the specification of production details. Although plastics can be tailored to meet a broad range of applications and environments, they do not work in all situations. One must assess the requirements of the entire application early in the design process to select an appropriate material. Plastic design requires care since there are many plastics and fabrication is critical in product performance. To cope with these and other factors, approach design from the broadest possible context. First evaluate needs of the system rather than that of individual parts or components. This approach helps assess opportunities for parts consolidation. Then define all aspects of the system under development, including its functional (mechanical, environmental, thermal, and electrical); aesthetic (appearance, color, surface finish); and manufacturing (processing, assembly and finishing) requirements.
Senco Products replaced aluminum with Celcon acetal copolymer in the main drive cylinder of a pneumatic nail gun. The gun, which uses a piston operating at 120 psi to drive 2-inch nails into wood, had needed daily lubrication with the metal cylinder. The acetal's high lubricity and wear resistance eliminated the need for lubrication and allowed for more than a million cycles. Poor lubrication by the user had been the main reason for tool failure.

Select Design Team

Define design criteria

Develop system and component concepts

Refinement of:

Design
Develop initial components designs

Materials
Make tooling and processing choices

Tooling

Processing
Conduct simulation and prototyping

Set final design

Production

Figure 1 A Road Map for Converting from Metal to Plastics

A typical design checklist and a detailed design checklist form for all but the most complex design situations are available. The data developed in filling out the form guides the initial design concepts and helps form screening parameters for candidate designs, materials, and processes. Although it calls for significant effort initially, the checklist protects against oversights, which can be expensive and time-consuming to correct later.

III. Guidelines for Metals Replacement 1. Pay special attention to factors that can stress the system and its components, not only during end use, but also during fabrication and assembly.
4

2. Differentiate needs from wants, i.e., essential properties from desirable ones. Give greater weight to the former to make the design process and materials selection more efficient and effective. 3. Define key requirements for the application, e.g., maximum and minimum temperatures and tolerances, maximum loads or deflections, critical dimensions, color, and flammability. 4. Beware of one-to-one replacement. Direct substitution of plastics for metals rarely works. Plastics have very different performance, e.g. mechanical (strength, stiffness, toughness, creep deformation, creep failure, and fatigue), electric and thermal properties. These affect design features such as wall thickness, ribs and other projections, radii at intersecting surfaces, holes, and depressions. 5. Build features around functional needs. This can lead to parts combination, which often eliminates fabrication and assembly operations, reduces weight, improves structural integrity, and lowers cost. The team should think about the needs of the system, rather than those of individual components. 6. Optimize cost-performance values by using the minimum amount of plastics to satisfy structural, functional, moldability and economic demands. 7. Factor manufacturing, maintenance, assembly, and disassembly into the design to reduce costs of labor, tooling, finishing, and other areas. Use total finished-part cost in the assembly to guide design. 8. Make design, materials selection and fabrication decisions concurrently, and refine these decisions continually throughout the process (See Fig. 1). IV. Selecting the Design Team In the switch from metals to plastics, a strong team keeps the effort on track in the face of a bewildering array of choices. The team's expertise can make the process more efficient by compressing the design cycle, reducing costs, and improving quality. The internal team usually contains four to six persons. Depending on the product, it can include representatives from production, design, engineering, research and development, sales, marketing, and purchasing. This team is the foundation of the program. It should be kept intact until the design effort is completed, so the knowledge gained early in design is not lost later on. Other members, such as representatives from quality control, are brought in as needed.

Design team should include 4 6 team members with C Experience / expertise C Representation from all functional areas C Full support of the organization C Supported by external organizations, such as plastics supplier, mold maker, and equipment suppliers

The external team contains those who understand the entire process, such as a plastic supplier or design consultant, and those who lend depth in specific areas, for example, the molder, tool builder, and assembly equipment supplier. Experts from customers, industrial design firms, and elsewhere can be accessed as needed. Each player has a specific role. The internal team orchestrates all activities and defines design and performance requirements. Plastics suppliers provide data on plastic properties and performance. They can assist in preliminary or detailed design, prototype testing, fabrication, and pre-production evaluations. Suppliers' services include everything from basic print reviews to sophisticated engineering analyses. They often offer training to help customers better understand their materials and how to use them efficiently. The tool builder and molder ensure that the part can be fabricated cost-effectively. The molder, for instance, helps determine that the plastic and the mold are properly matched and that part geometry is properly specified. Assembly and manufacturing equipment suppliers evaluate the design so the part can be readily assembled. They determine, for example, whether or not assembly loads call for support tabs and how to orient parts emerging from fabrication. Attending to such details improves the efficiency of the entire process. The most successful metals-replacement efforts generally employ a design team that combines concurrent design methods with careful development and testing. Some companies take a less effective, but all too common approach. They appoint an individual as the plastics expert, choose a part for conversion, and assign unrealistic time lines. Little teamwork is involved. Failure is almost ensured. Those who are designated the plastics expert role should push to form at least a basic team. The team should choose a part for metals replacement only after understanding plastics and reviewing many candidate parts. If possible, to improve the chance of success in a first-time conversion select a component that will work even if it varies somewhat from the expected result. This provides the maximum learning experience at the minimum risk.

V. Conceptual Design Process Conceptual design proceeds from general considerations to specific requirements, beginning with a clear understanding of application requirements. This understanding guides the development of
6

overall system design concepts and the choice of likely plastic families. The next step involves general component concepts for design, material, fabrication and tooling. To get a product to market rapidly, a manufacturer may rush the conceptual design and select a specific design prematurely. This can lead to an inadequate part and actually extend the development cycle by forcing design readjustments to meet system requirements later on. Allocate enough time to detail system requirements and select viable design concepts. The sales and marketing group often directs the effort to develop design criteria to meet customers' needs. This group works with design and engineering groups to define the details critical to the system, component or part. These details may include: how the system, component or part will be used; its appearance; its mechanical and environmental characteristics; regulatory agency requirements; and stress during manufacturing. Part tolerances also must be considered, since these determine the level of precision for tooling, processing equipment, and secondary finishing, as well as materials performance. When tolerances are tight, small variations in each processing step, such as mold filling and cooling, can add up to a loss of critical dimensions. The designers then prepare component concepts based mainly on requirements deemed essential on the checklist. The team evaluates the designs against these requirements and selects one or more concepts for further development. It also may combine features from different concepts into a single concept.

Tray to hold computer chips during manufacture uses Vectra liquid crystal polymer (LCP) rather than metal because of the high cost of machining metal. Vectra LCP offers excellent chemical resistance to withstand substances used in cleaning and other manufacturing steps. In molding, this plastic has high flow and virtually no shrinkage, so it fills the intricate grid pattern completely and maintains exact tolerances.

The team then analyzes the cost of the preliminary component and assembly concepts, as well as several materials and fabrication options. Cost calculations weed out uneconomical design concepts and provide the basis for further cost analysis and understanding. After the initial detailed design is completed, the preliminary cost analysis is refined by including mold cycle times, materials usage, scrap rates, efficiencies, and so on.

VI. Choosing the Right Plastic The team fine tunes material selection as design proceeds to final form. In choosing a plastic, maximize system performance at the lowest possible cost. Plastic screening parameters must consider all factors, including chemical resistance, that may cause cracking, crazing, discoloring,
7

softening, and melting - whether during handling, assembly, finishing, or use. Materials selection is particularly difficult because plastics offer literally tens of thousands of options. Plastic properties, such as heat resistance, stiffness and strength, cover a broad range of performance when several different plastics are considered (See Fig. 2). Thermoplastics have a performance-based hierarchy - commodity, intermediate, engineering and high performance grades (Table 1). In moving through this hierarchy, from commodity to high-performance categories, plastics generally have a greater ability to carry loads, withstand impact and high temperature, and resist attack by chemicals or solvents. Many polymers are formulated with reinforcements and additives to control impact and mechanical strength, shrinkage, warpage, lubricity, and other properties. A plastics basic properties depend on polymer chemistry, chain length and structure, and the bonds between chains. Basic properties are modified by alloying different plastics and by blending in additives, fillers, and reinforcements. Properties that can vary in different formulations include:
C C

Mechanical (impact resistance, strength, rigidity, creep, and dimensional stability). Electrical (conductivity, dielectric strength, dielectric constant loss factor, and surface tracking). Environmental (resistance to chemicals, water, and ultraviolet light). Thermal (thermal expansion, long-term thermal index, heat deflection temperature, mechanical response at temperature, and plastic stability). Miscellaneous (plateability, flame retardancy, transparency, and lubricity).

C C

2,500 Stiffness (kpsi)

3 ,0 0 00 Strength (psi)
PC PEEK ABS PP PS PPS GF POM LCP GF PA 6/6 PBT GF PEI GF

2,000 1,500 1,000 500 -

2 ,0 0 00 1 ,0 0 00 -

ABS

PS

LCP GF

PBT GF

Plastic Type

P sticTp la y e

Heat Deflection Temperautre (deg F)

75 0

100

25 0

Price ($/lb)

50 0

10

POM

PC

PBT GF

LCP GF

PP

PS

PEI GF

PPS GF

PA 6/6

ABS

PEEK

LCP GF

PEI GF

PBT GF

P T e lastic yp

Plastic Type

ABS - Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene PS Polystyrene PA 6/6 - Nylon 6/6 PC Polycarbonate PEEK Polyetheretherketone PPS GF - Glass Reinforced Polyphenylene Sulfide

PP - Polypropylene POM - Acetal Copolymer PBT GF - Glass Reinforced Polybutylene Terephthalate LCP GF - Glass Reinforced Liquid Crystal Polymer PEI GF - Glass Reinforced Polyetherimide

Figure 2 Plastics Cover a Broad Range of Property Performance

PPS GF

ABS

PA 6/6

PEEK

PP

PS

POM

PC

0.1

PPS GF

PC

PEI GF

POM

PA 6/6

PEEK

PP

Table 1 Performance of Classes of Plastics1 Representative Properties Notched Izod Flexural Deflection Impact Modulus Temperature Strength (x103 psi) @ 264 psi (F) (ft-lb/in) 2 16 10 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 80 350 370 270

Specific Gravity

Thermosets Alkyd polyester Epoxy, general purpose Phenolic, general purpose Urea formaldehyde, black Thermoplastics Commodity ABS, injection, medium impact Polyethylene (LDPE), injection, general purpose Polypropylene homopolymer Polystyrene, crystal PVC, general purpose Engineering Acetal copolymer Nylon 6/6 Polybutylene terephthalate, 30% glass fiber Polycarbonate, injection, general purpose High Performance Liquid crystal polymer, 30% glass fiber Polyetheretherketone Polyetherimide, 30% glass fiber Polyphenylene sulfide, 40% glass fiber

1.2 1.25 1.5 1.5

1.05 0.92 0.90 1.05 1.3

320 250 475 13

3 No break 0.8 0.4 1.0

170 <100 131 180 155

1.41 1.14 1.52 1.2

300 2 493/247 1,200 360

1.4 0.7/1.2 2 18

230 220 410 289

1.62 1.32 1.51 1.67

2,100 700 1,200 1,700

4.4 1.6 2 1.3

445 600 405 500

C C C C C

Resin Selection Maximize performance at lowest possible price Consider processing, fabrication, installation and end-use requirements Identify all required code and agency approvals Consider worst case scenarios Evaluate several plastic candidates

In addition to the number of plastics available, plastic selection is complicated by the number and narrow focus of standard tests for many properties. Most tests are intended for comparison. Since they are conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, they may not include all factors that influence a property in actual use.
1 2

Adapted from: Handbook of Plastic Materials and Technology, Irvin L. Rubin (1990). Dry-as-Molded/Moisturized
10

Some characteristics, like adhesion or wear, cannot be predicted accurately using standard laboratory tests. Other properties, such as dimensional stability, strength, and rigidity, combine the effects of several factors and are difficult to measure in the lab. For example, dimensional stability might combine coefficient of thermal expansion, moisture absorption, post-mold shrinkage, and relaxation of molded-in stresses. Assessment of how a plastic performs in such areas often depends on prototype testing. In choosing a plastic for a specific application, consider processing and end-use factors, such as:
C

Temperature. Higher temperatures generally make plastics more sensitive to mechanical stresses and more vulnerable to chemical attack, while lower ones generally make them less ductile. Carefully map the operating temperature range using environmental variables and mechanical loads so that the part is not thermally over- or under-engineered. Consider temperatures during assembly, finishing, shipping, and in the final application. Environment. Consider compatibility with solvents, acids, bases, fuels, and other substances that may affect the part. Apply data from plastic suppliers, considering exposure time, concentration, and temperature. Since chemical mixtures often affect a plastic differently than an individual component, expose plastics to mixtures they may meet in assembly or end use. Also consider reactions to other factors, such as humidity, ultraviolet light, and radiation. Agency approvals. These include Underwriters' Laboratories, the Canadian Standards Association, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Sanitation Foundation, among many others. Anticipate agency requirements and work with plastic suppliers to evaluate how to obtain the approvals. Assembly. Match assembly methods to the material. For example, some materials are compatible with solvent bonding and others with ultrasonic welding, while snap-fit designs require plastics that have good strength, flexibility and dimensional stability. Finish. Will the plastic attain the desired appearance in the mold? If gloss is important, can it be controlled at consistent levels? If need be, can the plastic be economically finished painted or printed? Availability. Ensure that the plastic will be available in the needed quantity.

In testing a plastic to replace a metal, match test protocols to the parts requirements and the material's characteristics. Do not assume that conventional test standards used with metals apply to plastics. Protocols to evaluate from this standpoint include thermal cycling, hardness, corrosivity, flammability, creep, and fatigue. The latter two are particularly important over the life of the part. If fatigue-life tests are conducted quickly - e.g., a million or more cycles in less than a month - they may overlook the long-term creep effects of the steady average load imposed
11

during fatigue

Blower housing for forced hot-air furnaces uses Fortron polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) as a sheet metal replacement because it resists corrosive combustion condensates at temperatures to 500F. The use of a plastic allows greater design flexibility, e.g., using tool inserts to change mounting tabs for different furnace models; eliminated bending, punching, cutting and other assembly operations, and reduced noise by 25 percent.

.
C C C C C C

Some Important Considerations Initial strength properties Retention of strength with end-use exposure Creep Installation Repairs and re-assembly Disposal

VII. Fabrication Process In developing mold and tool designs, consider the nature of the part, the material, and the fabrication technology. The design team should understand the range of plastics fabrication options and their relation to design. In selecting an option, compare costs for the complete assembly. Consider the equipment needed - type, size, cost, and tool life based on the number of parts. Also evaluate how each fabrication process will affect part performance and the tooling requirements of each option. Injection-molded thermoplastics are most often selected in metals replacement and will be the focus of much of this discussion. The fabrication process and its associated tooling affect wall thickness, projections, holes, and other basic part features. In blow molding, for example, corners and surface features can cause significant variation in wall thickness. The quality of surface detail also varies by process. In thermoforming, for example, pressure forming gives better detail than vacuum routes. Injection molding with thermoplastics is economical, efficient and precise. It accurately produces finished, multifunctional and complex molded parts in a highly automated operation. Compared with die casting, for example, it is faster and offers longer tool life. Die-cast molds usually last about 100,000 cycles or less. Injection molding tools routinely go through more than a million cycles before they require major maintenance.
12

A well-designed injection mold allows for the broadest possible processing window so that plastic and process variables can shift somewhat over time without loss of part quality. In the short term, for example, this allows for changes in plastic viscosity and for process variations in hydraulic pressure or barrel temperatures. It also allows for long-term variations, such as screw and barrel wear that affect melt quality. Computerized finite element methods, like mold-filling analysis (MFA), reduce the time and cost to develop mold tools. MFA evaluates gate position and size to optimize plastic flow. It also defines the location of weld lines, areas of excessive stress on the melt, and effects of wall and rib thickness on flow. Other finite-element design tools for molds include: cooling analysis for mold temperature distribution and cycle time; shrink analysis for dimensional control; molded-in stresses, and warpage predictions. Aspects of the part that influence the features and cost of molds and tools include:
C

Complexity. Complex parts may need unscrewing or collapsing cores, side pulls, slides, multiple plates, or intricate parting lines. Wall thickness affects the cooling system built into the mold, the number of cavities in the tools, and cycle time. Weld lines may form zones of weakness in the part. Their location may be controlled by gate placement. Surface finish determines if the mold must be polished or textured. Residual stress. The need to limit residual stress in the part impacts on gating, wall thickness and runner design choices.

C C

VIII. Tool Design Tool design is determined largely by the fabrication process. In injection molding, the designer must deal with placement, type and size of gates, size and number of cavities, draft, the runner system, and slides:
C

Gate design is complex, requiring balancing many concerns. As plastic passes through a gate, flow lines may form on the part surface. Gates can be moved so these lines cannot be seen, if a blemish-free surface is needed. Gates must be configured to balance pressure distribution in the cavity and to provide proper alignment of plastic molecules and filler elements. Improper alignment creates weak areas in the part. Gates must optimize moldfilling time and accommodate the plastic flow length at a specific temperature, especially for thin walls and other narrow sections. The size and type of a gate also greatly influences part shrinkage.
13

The number of cavities per tool varies with production volume and tolerances such that increasing volume implies increasing the number of cavities per tool. Finer tolerances mean fewer cavities per tool in some applications. Draft, a slight taper in the mold enabling the part to release, usually ranges from 0.5 to 3, or 0.009 to 0.052 in. of taper per inch of length. It is affected by surface finish - the higher the polish, the less the required taper. The runner system affects how much scrap is produced. Conventional cold runners produce a large amount of scrap, which can be reground and reused for thermoplastics. Hot sprue bushings produce less scrap by effectively extending the nozzle of the machine into the mold. Hot runner systems yield no scrap, but cost more and are harder to operate than cold runners. Hot runners are especially useful when the volume in the runner is large relative to part size. Parts with holes or depressions perpendicular to the direction the mold opens and closes must have side-action slides. This is expensive and requires more maintenance than a simpler tool.
Ultrasonic dental cleaner made of Vectra liquid crystal polymer withstands sterilization from all commonly used sterilization methods -- chemical and steam autoclaves, as well as dry heat, cold chemical and gamma ray sterilization. The plastic was chosen because of its excellent dimensional stability, low moisture absorption, stiffness and chemical resistance.

IX. Effect of Plastic Chosen The characteristics of the plastic also affect part and mold design. Key plastic qualities to consider include:
C

Flowability, which depends on melt viscosity, shear resistivity and thermal conductivity, is affected by: flow length in the cavity; gate type, size, and placement; and mold cavity cooling. Heat transfer coefficient. Proper heat transfer prevents warpage due to differential cooling. It also maintains a uniform temperature in the mold so optimum plastic characteristics develop by either crystallization of crystalline plastics or annealing of amorphous ones. Plastic shrinkage is important because mold cavities are sized so that, upon cooling, part dimensions fall within the design tolerances. The filler type and orientation affect shrinkage. For example, the use of fibrous fillers may result in more shrinkage in one direction than in another. Part shrinkage also depends on part thickness and geometry (e.g., thin areas shrink
14

least), gate and runner sizing, flow-distance in the mold, how the tool allows for cooling and heating, and finally, process conditions.

X. Assembly Methods Owing to their design flexibility, plastics offer cost-saving assembly and manufacturing advantages. Plastic parts can be made to exacting tolerances without machining and can contain molded-in features like mounting holes and color that eliminate welding, drilling, painting, assembly, and other secondary finishing operations often needed with metals. Design should encompass all assembly steps required of the part being replaced, such as picking, orientation, and placing, as well as the need for painting, trimming, and drilling. Consider various assembly strategies to improve production efficiencies, such as parts consolidation and optimal methods for joining a part to other components. Means of attachment include:
C

Molded-in assembly systems, such as snap-fit, press-fit, and pop-on types. These are fast and inexpensive, and they need no additional parts. However, tooling may be complex and expensive, and careful design is required in systems that need to be disassembled. Chemical bonding, by solvent welding or adhesives, works well for liquid and gas seals, and where fasteners are a problem. Bonding may have long cure times and use toxic substances. The bond strength of different plastics varies greatly, and must be taken into account. Welding, via ultrasonics, vibration, spin, electromagnetic, or thermal methods, is fast and safe. Welding effectiveness depends on the method and plastic chosen. It is effective only with similar materials. Mechanical fasteners include bolts, screws, rivets, and spring clips. Easy to use, these fasteners permit nondestructive disassembly; however, extra parts must be stocked, and assembly costs are high. The part must not be overstressed during assembly. Molded-in threads or metal inserts should be used to allow for disassembly, especially in high-load situations.

Design for assembly directly affects part profitability. The goal is minimizing or even avoiding assembly through parts consolidation. When this is not possible, use joining techniques that minimize handling, such as snap-fits. Mechanical fasteners are the most expensive since each requires separate handling and extra assembly time. The part shape should make it easy to orient and align, minimizing mistakes during mating. XI. Cost Considerations As a rule of thumb, the switch from metals is made when plastics offer equal or better performance at a saving of at least 20 percent in finished part cost. To find the saving, the team needs to define improvements in part performance and costs. Doing so means evaluating the materials, the assembly and manufacturing practices, and the application. In comparing an
15

existing metal part with one of plastic, account for all real costs, including finishing and operating costs buried in overhead. Although plastics may cost more per pound than metal (Table 2) they often are less expensive in the finished part (Table 3) due to parts consolidation and elimination of machining operations, among others factors already mentioned.
Table 2 Raw Material Costs Material Plastics Thermoset Alkyd polyester Epoxy, general purpose Phenolic, general purpose Urea formaldehyde, black Commodity Thermoplastics ABS, injection, medium-impact Polyethylene (LDPE), injection, general purpose Polypropylene, homopolymer Polystyrene, crystal PVC, injection, general purpose Engineering Thermoplastics Acetal copolymer Nylon 6/6 Polybutylene terephthalate, 30% glass fiber, FR Polycarbonate, injection, general purpose High Temperature Thermoplastics Liquid crystal polymer, 30% glass fiber Polyetheretherketone Polyetherimide, 30% glass fiber Polyphenylene sulfide, 40% glass fiber Metals Stainless steel Bronze Brass Steel, cast iron Zinc Aluminum Magnesium Price ($/lb)3 Density (Lb/in3) Price ($/in3)

0.89 1.36 0.64 0.72

0.043 0.045 0.054 0.054

0.039 0.061 0.035 0.039

0.70 0.57 0.31 0.51 0.37

0.038 0.033 0.033 0.038 0.047

0.027 0.019 0.010 0.019 0.017

1.05 1.47 1.37 1.55

0.051 0.041 0.055 0.043

0.053 0.061 0.075 0.067

7.95 33.00 4.38 3.45

0.059 0.048 0.055 0.045

0.465 1.574 0.239 0.155

1.67 1.42 1.30 0.31 0.56 0.75 1.25

0.282 0.315 0.308 0.280 0.240 0.098 0.066

0.471 0.448 0.401 0.087 0.134 0.074 0.083

Focusing on the material to the exclusion of part design and processing encourages selection of what may not be the least expensive plastic. This approach can ignore economies from using higher-performance materials. For example, a plastic that flows readily may yield thinner walls, lowering cost, speeding cycle time, and reducing tool wear and maintenance. Another high3

Prices are based on bulk metal prices. Prices for the plastics are from Plastic News, August 16,2001 16

performance plastic may allow greater parts integration and lower assembly costs. Also, parts consolidation cuts costs because a manufacturer reduces inventory, overhead, labor, manufacturing floor space, assembly time, energy use, and secondary finishing. Consolidation yields the most effective assembly method, whether manual or automated. In consolidating parts, be sure that the cost of increased complexity does not outweigh savings in reduced assembly costs--for instance, the expense of complex, multiple-cavity tools.
C C C C

Areas for Potential Cost Savings Consolidation of parts Processing and assembly Decorating Overhead Floor space Utilities

TABLE 3: Typical Fabricated Part Costs In comparing the cost of plastic or metal in a specific application, look beyond the materials to fabricated part cost. The following examples, based on polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) vs. brass and a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) vs. stainless steel, illustrate how such calculations can be done. Note that these are initial comparisons and consider only a one-to-one replacement of plastic for metal. In reality, design refinements with plastic like - parts consolidation - would add other cost efficiencies. The examples use the following factors: LCP X 0.05X 0 PPS Y 0.15Y 0 - 0.15Y Cast Metal Z 1.35Z 1.40Z

Raw Material Cost Molding / Casting Finishing

These factors assume that molding costs less than casting and that plastics need almost no secondary finishing. Finishing of cast metal parts often includes: trimming of flash at parting lines; deflashing holes and slots; drilling and tapping threads; drilling, reaming and counterboring holes: and machining in features under 25 to 60 mils. By contrast, LCP typically needs no secondary finishing, and PPS may require deflashing in some extremely complex parts. EXAMPLE 1. PPS vs. Brass in a Refrigeration Check Valve Assumptions: A 3-cu-in refrigeration check valve requires several finishing operations when made of brass, but none when made of PPS. The brass tool has already been depreciated, so no tooling costs are involved. The $175,000 mold and molding-machine cost for PPS is amortized over the run. No part redesign is required.

17

Costs ($/lb.) Raw Material (lb.) ($) Casting / molding ($) Finishing ($) Tooling Amortization ($) Total Cost ($)

Brass 1.42 0.92 1.31 1.77 4 1.35 x Raw Material Cost 1.84 1.4 x Raw Material Cost 0 4.92

PPS 3.45 0.85 1.41 0.09 0.15 x Raw Material Cost 0 0.88 (i.e. $175,000/200,000) 1.59

Result: 68% reduction by using PPS.

EXAMPLE 2. LCP vs. Stainless Steel in a Surgical Instrument Assumptions: The 3-cu-in surgical instrument requires several finishing operations. The brass tool has already been depreciated, so no tooling costs are involved, while the $150,000 mold and molding machine cost is amortized over the run. No part redesign is required. Stainless Steel 1.67 0.85 1.41 1.91 1.35 x Raw Material Cost 1.98 1.4 x Raw Material Cost 0 5.30 LCP 7.95 0.18 1.41 0.21 0.15 x Raw Material Cost 0 0.75 (i.e. $150,000/200,000) $2.37

Costs ($/lb.) Raw Material (lb.) ($) Casting / molding ($) Finishing ($) Tooling Amortization ($) Total Cost ($)

Result: 55% reduction by using LCP.

XII. Initial Part Design As the conceptual design stage draws to a close, the team evaluates the concepts developed, their contribution to the overall system, and alternatives to improve the system and reduce costs. These concepts determine potential materials and fabrication processes. The designs selected then
4

Base on costs listed in Table 2

18

undergo detailed analysis. For injection-molded plastics, detailed design usually begins with defining geometric relationships. Ideally, the walls and surfaces should have a uniform thickness (the nominal wall thickness). Designers use the nominal wall to support projections, holes and other features. The design process then adds elements that strengthen the part. Avoid heavy masses of plastic that can cause sinks, voids, warpage, and other distortions. Such masses extend cycle times and greatly increase part cost. Be sure to create proper draft so that the part ejects when the mold opens. In creating draft, the nominal wall is sloped, unlike in sheet metal or machined metal parts. Other design considerations follow.
The use of Vandar thermoplastic polyester alloy in place of die cast metal for an industrial vacuum cleaner nozzle allowed the manufacturer to reduce nozzle weight while retaining toughness. It also made the part less susceptible to corrosion because the plastic resists detergents and cleaning chemicals. The Vandar part also provided greater freedom of design, was less expensive to fabricate and had molded-in color, so there was no paint to chip or scratch.

XIII. Nominal Wall Thickness Most injection-molded parts have 1/32-to 3/16-in. thick walls (0.8 to 5.0 mm), depending on applied loads and deflections. The basic wall should be as thin as possible to reduce cost, while providing the mechanical properties needed. (Materials cost rises linearly with wall thickness; molding cost, in terms of cycle time, rises with the square of wall thickness.) Walls that are too thin may fail. Unnecessarily thick ones may make the product unattractive, overweight, and expensive, as well as extend the molding cycle times. In high-load situations, use ribs or sculpt the surface by corrugation, crowning or other means to increase stiffness, rather than using thicker walls. Other options are switching to a higher-strength, higher-modulus plastic, or considering other fabrication methods. According to many designers, non-uniform wall thickness is the major source of part problems, because of molded-in stresses, shrinkage, warpage and other factors. In general, hold wall thickness as constant as possible, allowing variation of no more than 10 to 25 percent. If thickness must vary more, make the transitions as gradual as possible, and design the flow of plastic from thick to thin sections. This minimizes molded-in stresses and allows thick sections to be filled reliably. XIV. Radii Plastic parts need generous radii to reduce stress concentrations at surface intersections. Sharp corners are a major problem, along with non-uniform walls. Both may cause failure under high load or impact, as well as give poor flow patterns during molding, hasten tool wear, and increase molded-in stresses as the material shrinks.
19

Inside-corner radii or fillets should be at least half the nominal wall thickness. Parts subjected to high loads should have radii of more than 0.02 in. (0.5 mm). Those corners in stress-free areas can have radii as small as 0.005 in. (0.1 mm). Outside corners should have radii equal to the inside corner plus the wall thickness. XV. Projections Ribs and gussets (small triangular ribs that reinforce bosses and wall intersections) increase bending load-carrying ability and part stiffness, while bosses allow alignment during assembly or provide attachment points. Use ribs rather than thicker walls to increase structural integrity if space is available. Ribs are more material-efficient and do not affect mold cycle time. Rib thickness at the base should be half that of the adjacent wall. Rib height is typically 2 to 3 times nominal wall thickness, although it may range from 1 to 5 times. Keep ribs as thin as possible opposite visible areas to avoid sink marks. When the structure is more important than appearance, or when a lowshrinkage plastic is used, ribs can be as thick as the outside wall. Ribs should have at least half a degree of draft per side and a minimum radius of 0.005 in. (0.1mm) at their base. Multiple, evenly spaced ribs, rather than single large ones, generally give better load distribution. Connect ribs smoothly to bosses, side-walls, component mounting pads, and other structures. Vary their height or number according to load. Gussets usually extend 1 to 2 wall thicknesses from the intersection of the reinforced elements.
Magnetic drive pumps for film processors, laboratories and diagnostic equipment from Gorman-Rupp Industries use housings and impellers of Vectra liquid crystal polymer. The LCP offers excellent dimensional stability and strength in thinwall sections. The thin walls are needed for optimal magnetic coupling. The plastic also offers high lubricity, which allows the impeller and housing to be in direct contact and eliminates the need for bearings.

Bosses usually serve as mounting, positioning, or fastening points. As with rib design, hold to a reasonable thickness (no more than that of the nominal wall) to avoid appearance and molding problems. As a structural component, however, bosses may force a tradeoff between the need for thin sections for appearance and heavy sections for strength. When a boss is to take a selftapping screw, carefully control its inside diameter and wall thickness to avoid excessive stress.

XVI. Coring This method creates a pocket, opening, or blind hole in a part, often to reduce weight, eliminate
20

heavy wall sections, or provide mounting points. Cores are created by pins that project into the mold cavity. The minimum size of a core depends on how well it withstands the force of flowing plastic without excessive deflection. The depth of a blind hole should not exceed 3 times its diameter or minimum cross-section. Cores that extend into other parts of the mold can be twice as long as blind cores because they are supported at both ends.

XVII. Analysis and Simulation Design analysis defines part shape, thickness, and other parameters that establish performance. Analysis should consider both the molding process and plastic. It can include the plastic's nonlinear response even to low stress levels. Thermal stress can build if a plastic is rigidly fastened to a material with a much different coefficient of thermal expansion. It is also necessary to provide for relative motion between the parts. The initial design creates a theoretical part. Subsequent analysis, simulation, and prototyping evaluate and demonstrate how the part works in its intended application and provide essential feedback to refine the design. Engineering analysis defines optimum part geometry by evaluating direct loads or deflections on a point, line, boundary, or area. A simple engineering analysis during conceptual design provides initial part geometry. In conducting such an analysis, assume the accuracy of the results is no better than 25 %. Approximate design equations, found in many design texts, use simplified stress and deflection equations. Subsequent analyses increase accuracy by using more exact classical equations or computerized methods that may incorporate nonlinear effects and geometric concerns during assembly, shipping, processing, and end use. Many computerized design tools have evolved in the past two decades, including computer-aided design, engineering, and manufacturing (CAD, CAE and CAM, respectively). For simplicity, these technologies are grouped here under CAD. They have fostered the use of plastics in increasingly complex applications, many of which could not be handled with manual analysis techniques. The CAD tool that predicts part performance is structural finite-element analysis (FEA). Structural FEA is especially useful in evaluating stress and deflection in complex parts with elaborately sculpted surfaces. It is an analytical prototyping process that starts with simple linear models and may proceed to more complex ones. As a staged process, it repeatedly refines and reanalyzes the part until confidence in its performance is attained. Other FEA tools predict mold filling, cooling, and warpage, as discussed above.

XVIII. Creating Prototypes Prototypes are models that enable the design team and customers to respond to the concept.
21

Prototypes also highlight design and assembly problems, and allow testing of essential properties. The more accurate the prototype, the more expensive it will be. In general, accurate prototypes are needed for complex parts having tight tolerances and great detail. They are also needed when mechanical and thermal properties require thorough testing. The most exact prototyping method duplicates the part using the same material and manufacturing process that will be employed in the finished part. Exact prototypes should duplicate wall thicknesses, curvatures, fillets, radii, draft, and other features. Any variation from the finished part can hide problems, such as warpage, shrinkage, bow, change in reinforcement orientation, locations of weld lines, or burning by gases trapped in the tool. Prototype molds should have the same gating, coolant lines, inserts, cores, and other features as will the production mold. A less exact route uses the same material but a different process----e.g., a part is machined from a block of plastic. A machined prototype made from the specified plastic often has different mechanical, chemical, and thermal properties than a molded model. The least exact method replicates part geometry from a different material and a different process. This method can be done by using desktop manufacturing techniques, such as simple 3-D milling machines, selective laser, sintering, and stereolithography (SLA). Simulation of part geometry by computer-aided methods enables an understanding of fit and function without having to create a physical model. These methods allow a CAD design to be rapidly converted into a finished part for design confirmation, evaluation and limited testing. SLA, for example, breaks the CAD design into finite slices and builds the part, layer by layer, from a liquid photopolymer using a laser. It is an advanced and cost-effective way to make prototypes in hours vs. days or weeks by machining or molding. Although SLA prototypes cannot cope with high mechanical loads, they can help develop assembly systems, evaluate enduse performance, aid in gaining agency approvals, and test ergonomic qualities, among other uses. Also, the SLA prototype can serve as a model to make a mold for injection-molding parts. An existing die-cast metal mold can be employed to make an initial plastic model if it approximates the final part and is suitable for plastics. For example, the part it produces should have uniform walls less than 3/16" in. thick. Such a prototype can be tested in the end-use application and provide a good estimate of shrinkage for use in making the final tool.

XIX. Prototype Evaluation Design requirements should guide prototype testing. In testing prototypes, it is recommended to use the original design criteria, giving the greatest weight to the most important factors. Where the part deviates from specifications, either adjust the design or alter other parts of the system. Although the specific tests to be performed depend on the part, most evaluations of exact prototypes have three areas of concern: moldability, part performance, and assembly.
22

Prototype evaluation guidelines speed selection In evaluating prototypes, consider the following questions: MOLDABILITY C Does it mold well? C Do hot or cold spots develop during molding? C Does it release from the tool reliably? C How much shrinkage occurs, especially in critical part areas? C Is the part within tolerances? C Is cycle time adequate? C How broad is the processing window? C Does regrind produce satisfactory parts? PART CHARACTERISTICS C Does the part have the proper tolerances? C Did it warp, bow, or have other distortions? C What are areas of potential failure, e.g.; weld lines? C Does the part have sink, flow marks, or other surface defects? ASSEMBLY C Can the part be properly mated to other ones? C Are there any fit interferences? C Does it work in the overall system? C Does it meet assembly, mechanical, thermal, electrical environmental, and other test protocols, e.g. screw attachments, maximum load at minimum and maximum temperatures, creep, and chemical exposure? C Can the assembly be made more efficient?

Problems that arise during prototype evaluation can often be corrected by looking at the entire system. Although many solutions can be found by studying the design, plastic, and process for a specific part, the best solution may involve other areas of the system. For example, it may be less expensive to alter a metal part that is joined to a plastic part by changing a control program on a numerically controlled milling machine than by making modifications to the injection mold for the plastic part. The prototype tool is often used as the pilot production tool. The production tooling should have the same cavity dimensions and plastic flow as the prototype tool. If the production tool differs from the prototype tool, consider the new tool as another prototype and retest the initial parts made from it. In qualifying the production line, run the new tools for a period of days to see if dimensions drift or if performance problems arise. Sample all cavities at set times during the run.
23

Look at improving the process by using regrind (generally sprues and runners that are reground for reuse in fabrication), a shorter cycle time, and other means, if not already considered during the prototype stage. If regrind is used, retest the part because the change in plastic may alter the properties of the finished part. XX. Conclusion As the design effort draws to a close, evaluate the entire design process. Create a database of what was learned to help guide future efforts. Typical issues for consideration include:
C C C C

What surprises were encountered and why? How did actual part performance match what was needed? Where did part performance fall short? What tolerances are reasonable to expect in parts made of a specific plastic by a specific process?

Also evaluate the process of managing a metals-replacement effort. Look at what is expected from the team's members when their individual contributions are critical to timing. Also, carefully examine the method that is used to guide their interactions. Fostering change in the face of long-standing metal use can be a difficult endeavor. Even though lower cost or better performance may drive the move to plastics, the effort can meet subjective obstacles. Assess what was learned about how to make the human side of metal replacement work. While the procedures for an efficient conversion to plastics may seem to be a daunting challenge, the effort is justified by the prospect of improved part performance and reduction in total finished system costs. These benefits offer manufacturers a substantial opportunity to maintain their competitive position in the face of increased costs and competition. To tap these opportunities, many manufacturers draw on the knowledge base offered by their suppliers to help make the conversion process smooth and efficient. Today, more than ever before, leading plastic suppliers, tool builders and processors have a vested interest to see their customers and prospects succeed as a means to grow their own businesses. As a result, these suppliers can focus their considerable resources to help customers reduce costs and improve product quality through increased formulation and applications development support. They often prefer to provide this service to customers willing to enter into strategic alliances for long-term supply. Through these alliances, suppliers are showing customers how to get their products to market faster and at lower cost, using not only conventional materials, but new designs and new materials along with new processing concepts to combine the production of many parts into fewer, more economical steps.
24

World-Class Engineering Polymers

Celanex thermoplastic polyester (PBT) Celcon and Hostaform acetal copolymer (POM) Celstran and Compel long ber

Contact Information Americas Ticona Engineering Polymers Product Information Service 8040 Dixie Highway Florence, KY 41042 USA Tel.: +1-800-833-4882 Tel.: +1-859-372-3244 Customer Service Tel.: +1-800-526-4960 Tel.: +1-859-372-3214 Fax: +1-859-372-3125 email: prodinfo@ticona.com Europe Ticona GmbH Information Service Professor-Staudinger-Strae 65451 Kelsterbach Germany Tel.: +49 (0)180-584 2662 (Germany)* +49 (0)69-305 16299 (Europe)** Fax: +49 (0)180-202 1202
See example below for rate information: * 0.14 /min + local landline rates **0.06 /call + local landline rates

reinforced thermoplastics (LFRT)

Fortron polyphenylene sulde (PPS) GUR ultra-high molecular

weight polyethylene (UHMW-PE)

Impet thermoplastic polyester (PET) Riteex thermoplastic polyester elastomer (TPC-ET) Vandar thermoplastic polyester alloy (PBT) Vectra liquid crystal polymer (LCP)

NOTICE TO USERS: To the best of our knowledge, the information contained in this publication is accurate; however, we do not assume any liability whatsoever for the accuracy and completeness of such information. Any values shown are based on testing of laboratory test specimens and represent data that fall within the standard range of properties for natural material. Colorants or other additives may cause signicant variations in data values. Any determination of the suitability of this material for any use contemplated by the users and the manner of such use is the sole responsibility of the users, who must assure themselves that the material subsequently processed meets the needs of their particular product or use, and part design for any use contemplated by the user is the sole responsibility of the user. The user must verify that the material, as subsequently processed, meets the requirements of the particular product or use. It is the sole responsibility of the users to investigate whether any existing patents are infringed by the use of the materials mentioned in this publication. Please consult the nearest Ticona Sales Ofce, or call the numbers listed above for additional technical information. Call Customer Services for the appropriate Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) before attempting to process our products. Ticona engineering polymers are not intended for use in medical or dental implants. Except as otherwise noted, all of the trademarks referenced herein are owned by Ticona or its afliates. Fortron is a registered trademark of Fortron Industries LLC.

email: infoservice@ticona.de Ticona on the web: www.ticona.com Asia Celanese (China) Holding Co., Ltd. 3F, China Development Bank Tower 500 South Pu Dong Road Shanghai, 200120 P.R. China Customer Service Tel.: +86-21-3861 9266 Fax: +86-21-3861 9599 email: infohelp@ticona.com www.ticona.cn

2009 Ticona