×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
2

Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

(OP)
When designing injection moulded parts, tolerances are added to ensure the parts will go together (GD&T). When the parts are moulded they fit together, but do not necessarily meet the drawing specification. How do other companies manage this? Do you modify the drawings/models to match the actual parts (could be difficult for complex parts), insist the supplier modifies the mould tools (expensive), or do you do something completely different?

Thanks

David.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Good question,
We have the same problem here with our castings. I assume you also need configuration control?
I am working on flushing out a concept I have seen from a big company that places a modification note on the current drawing dimensions that basically lists the engineering accepted deviations on another drawing/spreadsheet and it then becomes an "acceptable substitution approved  by engineering for this part" list.
Frank
 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

DJBLINX,
In a company I worked for in a past (connectors design) fit and function was like Bible. That said, even if actual measurements of a component were showing some features out of spec., the part was not rejected as long as it was remaining 'functional'. This happened quite often since injection molded parts by nature are quite tolerant for dimensional unconformities.

We dealt with this by placing an extra chart on a print listing:
- in column #1 - all dimensions and geometrical tolerances that were out of spec;
- in column #2 - max or min values at which the dimensions/tolerances from column #1 were allowed to be in order to keep a component functional.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

pmarc,
That sound like it, was this company big and most commonly known by a (2) letter acronym by any chance? ;)
Frank
 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

The simple answer is that if your parts can be "out of tolerance" and still work then your tolerances are wrong.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

No Frank, but close.
It was tier 1 supplier for this 2-letter-acronym company.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Some of column A, some of column B.  We change models & drawings to match as-molded if discrepancies are acceptable.  We thrash molders to in order to meet critical forms.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

MintJulep,
The answer is not that simple. It would be true for metal parts (in most cases) but for plastic components it is different.

Try to predict in which areas of a plastic component design the tolerances can be opened, even though theoretical stack-up calculations show that there is no way to let's say mate two parts together. One has to be really really experienced guy to be able to forsee this.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

pmarc,
Thank you,
Large complex castings and weldments in metal have these issues, too.
 
Mint,
I suspect you do not work shop that utilizes large castings or weldments?
Frank

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

pmarc,

   I agree with MintJulep.  If out of tolerance parts work, your tolerances are too tight.   Plastic is very much more flexible than metal, so you can hand-assemble interference fits, which may be why your parts still work.  You should review the tolerances of your parts.  

   How do your parts work in the hands of your customers?

   If it is too expensive to make interchangeable parts, you can always set up some sort of automated sorting process.  Sorting may be cheaper than working at or above the limits of what your fabricator can do.  

               JHG

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

I agree with Mint, but the closer the properties are to rubber, it may be better to specify tolerances for values such as deflection force at a specific location, or volume, or mass, or durometer, or resilience, or function and limit the GD&T, explicitly identifying what it covers and does not cover. Fully utilizing 'profile of a surface' callouts is another option if you have the metrology and software and the part is rigid or can be restrained consistently.
 

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

The other issue I had seen in my many years of experience is that this document also discusses is the concept that we do not want to slowly actually change the original nominal design criteria over time, that has been a sore spot for me in the past. This company has apparently had to live with the effects of that over a very long period of time and seen the value in it, where somewhere with less depth might tend to say, "Well that will be someone else's problem".
Frank

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Perhaps I don't understand the nature of the question then.

By definition "tolerance" defines the allowable limits of a dimension within which individual parts can vary and still function per the design intent.

It must therefore follow that if parts are "out of tolerance" but still work the tolerances are wrong.

Of course since most people don't understand what tolerance really means there is often confusion associated with it.

So I'm suspecting that issue here may be that parts as a whole, may be out of tolerance, but that the important bits are in tolerance, which is why things work ok.

This could stem from inappropriate use of "title block" or general tolerances, or the choice of datum features that do not correctly reflect the required function of the part.

 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Mint,
I tnink you do, I just suspect you do not know how much trouble it can be. :) Companies are in buisness, unfortunately, to make money not perfect drawings.
Frank

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

In general I agree with MintJulep.  However, there can be times that one dimension is out but because other dimensions are not at their limits the parts do work.  Increasing the tolerance that is out could in the future allow parts that do not work to be produced.  In cases like that we will sometimes allow a deviation "for the life of the tool" for that dimension.  Ugly solution but sometimes there is no better one.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Quote:

The simple answer is that if your parts can be "out of tolerance" and still work then your tolerances are wrong.
Not necessarily... other parts may also be out of tolerance, accomodating the original out of tolerance part.  You have a shaft with a diameter that is .005 too large (and out of tolerance), but still adequate if the hole it is to assemble in is also out of tolerance in the same direction and magnitude.  No problem for that assembly, but probably not interchangable with parts from another assembly batch.

Technically, the glass is always  full.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

dgallup,
Actually in general I agree with Mint too, I just can't keep up with 100 years of old drawings.
Have you also seen and actually worked with a system like I had described?
Frank
 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Quote:

We dealt with this by placing an extra chart on a print listing:
- in column #1 - all dimensions and geometrical tolerances that were out of spec;
- in column #2 - max or min values at which the dimensions/tolerances from column #1 were allowed to be in order to keep a component functional.

Well, it's ugly.

But in effect what it does is document the "real tolerances" doesn't it?

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Guys,
Let me try to clarify my point with a help of very simple example.
Two components which are designed to mate together:
- solid cylinder with outside diameter Ø9.9±0.05 (male part);
- cylindrical housing with inner diameter Ø10.0±0.05 and 0.4mm wall thickness around the slot (female part).

Now, imagine these part made of some kind of rigid material (e.g. aluminum alloy). At a worst-case scenario, due to parts rigidity, it will not be possible to mate them together when the cylinder and the housing both violate their 9.95 envelopes, so designer at the design stage knows the functional limits right away.

Then, think of these parts as of plastic components. A tolerance analysis at the design stage shows nothing different to previous case. But after the items have been manufactured, due to a flexibility of 0.4mm collar, it may occur that the mating is possible even if the envelope of inner diameter is 9.90. Reading your comments to my earlier post, I understand that at this point you will say that if mating was achievable the tolerances were "wrong" (MintJulep) or "too tight" (drawoh). And okay, I understand this. But how can a designer know what is the limit below which the mating of two parts will not be possible? Is it 9.90? 9.80? 9.70? What if the wall thickness was 0.5 and not 0.4? Would the functional limit be 9.92 or 9.94?
 
And this was/is my point - when dealing with plastic components the answers to those question are not that simple as in case of rigid parts? Designers with 20 years+ of experience will not be able to give you clear answers, trust me. Plus, I am talking here about an extremely simplified case, which is very unlikely to happen in a company designing and producing sophisticated connector systems. So 'the extra table' method is nothing else than an attempt of saying to toolmaker: "You do not have to rework the tool every time. Even though you did not meet the spec, we (design) can live with that because the component still functions." Isn't it opening tolerances up?

And last but not least - I am not saying that this method is the one and only. It has some shortcomings too but I just wanted to reveal one of the possibilities. Nevertheless, I really appreciate your comments.

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

pmarc,
Do you know why they insist that the casting tool be numbered and add the cast tool number and the dimensional variance? I would have thought just the dimensional deviations allowed would have been enough?
Frank
 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

What I like to say is that "You can process control your way, or robustly design your way, to reduced need, or even no need, for GD&T".

For assemblies of complex molded plastics parts (most of my experience is with ink jet printers, which fall into that category for sure), I think it would be fair to say that the best GD&T that time allow, with the best process control that the organization will enable, and the most robust design that design resources can manage may all three be needed to make the most profitable product.

Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
 

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Frank,
I did not say that at the beginning, but we also stated in the table that the acceptable dimensional deviations were applying for the specific tool-no. only.

The logic behind was that if a second mold (with different no.) was going to be built for the same component after the first one had been worn down, the acceptable deviations for the first tool would not necessarily stay functional for the next generation tool, because in the same time a mold for corresponding mating part could have been also changed. After each mold replacement, fit and function analysis was repeated and new tables with the acceptable dimensional deviations for new tools were added to the prints.

Complicated, but at that company it worked sufficiently.  

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

pmarc,
I see so you are saying the other "mating" part may be shifted too, I had not thought of that, wow. What a tangled web we weave!
Well I agree guys it ain't pretty!

Dean,
I would love to know what you said there?
Frank

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

Deformable parts, while unpleasant to deal with from a design/tolerance perspective, are a large segment of manufacturing.  Going back and modifying the dimensions & tolerances on the original drawing to reflect the as-built results is a no-win situation.  Designers don't have enough information over the process being used, and therefore usually don't select effective tolerances; when they do, tolerance stack-ups become a nightmare because the values can be so large.  Processes and tooling will create a shifting target over time; do you update the drawing every time?  Some processes are so poorly controlled for environment and such that literally the results change depending on the weather outside.  
I favor tying the adjustments into the PO rather than the original drawing if there is ongoing variance.  In that way, each batch/run is qualified based on the original intent rather than based on the last run.  

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

I have adjusted plastic part dimensions when the first articles came in a little different than I expected, due to other than predicted shrinkage, or due to different shrinkage when a material change was forced.

I have never made adjustments to cover batch variations after the first lot in a given material.  ... but I have almost never had enough production volume to wear out a mold or otherwise force generation of a second cavity for the same part.

As an accidental specialist in low to medium volume parts, I have had to deal with forced material changes on quite a few occasions.  If you don't buy railcar loads of resin, your supplier may one day decide to just stop making the stuff you need, because his primary customer changed materials, and the least awful substitute you can find is sure to be different.
 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded

pmarc,

   I have designed a plastic part that slid over an aluminium boss, with an interference fit. My design objective was to have zero clearance for accurate centreing.  I worked out the stresses and forces due to the interference fit and friction.  It was possible to slide the two components together by hand.  This would not have been possible with metal components.

   If you are trying to open up tolerances, you can work out maximum clearance between your components, and the maximum allowable interference.  In the case of a lot of plastics, this could be quite a bit.  

               JHG

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources