INJECTION MOLDING ENERGY CONSERVATION SEMINAR: MODERN INJECTION MOLDING David O. Kazmer, P.E., Ph.D. Northeast Utilities Auditorium, Berlin, CT

INJECTION MOLDING ENERGY CONSERVATION SEMINAR:

MODERN INJECTION MOLDING

David O. Kazmer, P.E., Ph.D.

Northeast Utilities Auditorium,

Berlin, CT

Economics 101 =Energy Conservation 101?

• Adam Smith– Wealth of Nations, 1776– Each individual "intending only

his own gain" must exchange what he owns or produces with others

– By division of labor and a free market, public interest is advanced.

• Does this “invisible hand” serve energy conservation?

$0.25/serving $0.20/serving $0.35/serving $0.87/serving

“Let’s Play The Price Is Right”

• Economic choices are usually rational

• Role of government to provide transfer prices and incentives

Agenda

• Modern Molding Technologies• Economic Structures & Data• Evaluation of Injection Molding

– Class 0: Obsolete– Class 1: Standard– Class 2: Efficient– Class 3: Lights Out

• Competitive Strategies• Conclusions

Molding Technologies:Modular Molds

• Modularity & standardization have provided– Reduced design time & mold tooling costs– 10 minute quick change in press

• Trend reversal– Cheap molds– Prototype molds– Lower importance of

quick change givenexcess capacity

Molding Technologies:All Electric Machines

• All electric advantages– ~50% of the power– Silent operation– Cleanliness– Precision– Reduced AC costs

• Trend to continue– Automotive hybrids

fuel motor technology– Asian machine technology improves

Molding Technologies:Hot Runners

• Melt delivery systems provide:– Low pressure drops– Fast cycle times– Zero material waste– Tight quality control

• Trend to continue:– Lower priced systems– New technologies– Economic decisions

Molding Technologies:Cavity Pressure Control

• Closed loop pressure feedback provides:– Automatic V/P switchover– Improved consistency– Quality control data

• Trend to continue:– Low cost sensors– Cheap computers– New technologies

• Improved control• Improved sensing

Modern Manufacturing

Molding Technologies:Automation

• Robotics provides for:– Reduced labor content (demolding & degating)– Repeatable cycle times– Fast cycle times

• Trend to continue:– Cheap computers– Low cost motors &

standard designs

Molding Technologies:Quality Control

• Quality control systems should enable:– Automatic acceptance or rejection– 100% part testing– Automatic cycling– Variance analysis

• Trend to grow:– SPC is crude– Sensor:analysis explosion– Improved capabilities

Molding Technologies:Electronic Data Systems

• Electronic data systems should enable:– Production scheduling– Materials requirements planning– Real time plant feedback– Real time process feedback

• Trend to grow:– Networked supply chains– Science-based products– Aggressive competitors

Molding Technologies:Others

• Coinjection• Dynamic feed• Gas assist• In-mold assembly• In-mold color• In-mold film• In-mold painting• Insert molding• Lost core molding

• Mold filling analysis• MuCell• Pad printing• Pulsed heating• Rapid prototyping• Stack molds• Thin wall• Two-shot molding• Water assist

Agenda




Cost StructuresTotal

Production Costs

TotalLabor Costs

TotalConsumables

Cost

TotalFacilities

Costs

Machinery

Maint’nce

Facilities

Yield

$/Hr

Output

Downtime

Energy

Resin

Cost Parameters

• Cost parameters N.E. China– Operator labor $13/hr $0.70/hr– Eng/Mgt labor $30/hr $3/hr– Energy cost $0.08/kWh– ABS resin $1477/ton $950/ton– Machinery cost $30/hr $15/hr– Facilities cost $7.00/ft2 $4.20/ft2

– Maintenance rate 10% 20%

Agenda




Evaluation of Injection Molding

• Case Study for a Mid-Sized Molder– 200 million parts per year– Average part weight: 10g

Class 0: ObsoleteOperating Conditions

• 8 cavities/mold with cold runners• Poorly selected hydraulic machines (26 kW)• 50 seconds per cycle (optimistic)

– Cooling issues & semi-automatic

• 95% quality level (optimistic)• 1 operator per 1 machine• 1 eng/mgt per 15 operators• 2 shifts, 5 days per week• 4 hour setup per 10,000 parts

Class 0: ObsoleteFactory Characteristics

#Operators#Machines #Eng/Mgt Energy Use

Class 0: ObsoleteCost Data

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

New England China

Facilities

Labor

Energy costs

Resin costs

Class 1: StandardOperating Conditions

• 16 cavities/mold with 50% hot runners• Well selected hydraulic machines (30 kW)• 45 seconds per cycle (optimistic)• 98% quality level (optimistic)• 1 operator per 2 machines• 1 eng/mgt per 15 operators• 2 shifts, 5 days per week• 2 hour setup per 10,000 parts

Class 1: StandardFactory Characteristics


Class 1: StandardCost Data

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

New England China

Facilities

Labor

Energy costs

Resin costs

Class 2: EfficientOperating Conditions

• 32 cavities/mold with hot runners• Electric machines (26 kW)• 40 seconds per cycle, fully automatic• 99% quality level• 1 operator per 4 machine• 1 eng/mgt per 15 operators• 3 shifts, 5 days per week• 1 hour setup per 10,000 parts

Class 2: EfficientFactory Characteristics


Class 2: EfficientCost Data

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

New England China

Facilities

Labor

Energy costs

Resin costs

Class 3: Lights OutOperating Conditions

• 32 cavities/mold with hot runners• Electric machines (22 kW)• 35 seconds per cycle

– Fully automatic including crating, etc.

• 99.9% quality level• 1 operator per all machines• 1 eng/mgt per all machines• 3 shifts, 7 days per week• 0.5 hour setup per 10,000 parts

Class 3: Lights OutFactory Characteristics


Class 3: Lights OutCost Data

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

New England China

Facilities

Labor

Energy costs

Resin costs

Comparison

• New England • China

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1 2 3

Factory Class

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1 2 3

Factory Class

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

Shipping

Production

Head to Head Competitive Assessment

0 1 2 3

0 -139% -280% -447% -512%

1 -7% -71% -146% -175%

2 39% 3% -40% -57%

3 52% 23% -10% -23%

China Factory ClassN

ew E

ngla

nd F

acto

ry C

lass

0 1 2 3

0

1

2

3

Validation: World Production

• US Plastics industry went from surplus of $894 million in 2000 to a deficit of $1,387 million in 2002– A swing of $2,281 million.

• In 2001, China exported $6bn of fabricated plastic products last year. – China also exports plastics in many other forms…

– In 2002 China doubled the volume of its exports

• China is world's largest petrochemical importer– Chinese petrochemical demand is doubling every 8 years.

Validation: Plastic Bags• In 2003, US imported more than 100bn plastic bags

• A coalition (Intelplast Group, PCL Packaging and Sonoco Products) claimed that Asian countries were flooding the US market with below-cost PE bags and demanded an anti-dumping duty

• In September, the US Inter’l Trade Commission determined that "there is a reasonable indication that a US industry is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia and Thailand that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value".

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

To

tal

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

($M

illi

on

s)

New England China

Facilities

Labor

Energy costs

Resin costs

A producer of plastic utensils found that they could purchase products from China for less than the cost of their resin.

Agenda




Competitive Strategies:Best Way Not to Compete

• Don’t be an ‘average’ custom molder– Non-optimal, semi-auto cycles– Low, variable production quantities– High labor content– Material cost disadvantages

• Higher volume jobs going overseas

• Lower volume jobs going to short run prototype shops

• Middle volume jobs are scarce and cheap

Competitive Strategies:Product Specialization

• Research indicates plastic parts are 10-40% of product value– Value is retained if vertically integrated– Outsourced suppliers typically recoup 5-10%

• Processors should focus on products– Vertical integration allows tight integration

between market, design, and processing

• Product technology & IP raises barriers to competition

Product Specialization Case Study

• Head up displaymaker– Internal molder– $15 reflector

• 0.25” Thick• 100 sec cycle

– Very highretained profit

• Other example: Visteon & HVAC Units• Other example: Nypro & cell phones

Competitive Strategies:Process Specialization

• Focus on advanced processes– Technology allows new capabilities– Investment, know how, and IP provides

barriers for competition

• Process focus can lead to a market niche– Market niche provides greater recognition with

better, more confident service

Process Specialization Case Study

• Proto-mold– Automated quote,

design, build, mold• $=f(Q,t)• Suggested changes

– Parts in 5 days• 100-10,000 qty• $7.00 - $3.00 vs. ~$0.40 in commodity market

• Other example: NAL & Stanley in auto lighting– Use of multi-shot molding

Agenda




Conclusions

• Competitiveness isn’t all about labor rates– Automation & localization can largely offset

• True commodities (bags) in jeopardy?

• It is about efficiency …– Knowing which/how to leverage technology

• … and differentiation– Market understanding, penetration, & recognition– Product & process specialization– Cost & time performance

Final Thoughts

• Mid-Term Issue: Oil & Natural Gas Supply– Increasing Asian demand– Weakening dollar

• Government debt• Trade deficit• Euro as preferred currency

• Long-Term: Labor Demand– Global supply of all labor– Improving supply chains

Documents

INJECTION MOLDING ENERGY CONSERVATION SEMINAR: MODERN INJECTION MOLDING David O. Kazmer, P.E., Ph.D. Northeast Utilities Auditorium, Berlin, CT