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.
Thanks
David.





RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
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
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
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
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
It was tier 1 supplier for this 2-letter-acronym company.
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
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
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
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.
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
Peter Truitt
Minnesota
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
Frank
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
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
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
----------------------------------------
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
Technically, the glass is always full.
RE: Injection Moulded Parts - As Designed v As Moulded
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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.