Custom moulding facility saves mould maintenance costs and reduces its scrap rate using Lusin ® MC1718 mould cleaner to remove build-up issues
Chem-Trend , a global leader in the development , manufacturing , and marketing of high-performance release agents , purging compounds , and mould maintenance products , is proud to propose a mould cleaner solution that combines excellent cleaning performance , simplicity of use and improved part quality .
During processing a fraction of polymer , additives as well as pigments slowly deposit on mould cavities . With time , it forms build up that incrementally affect the parts surface quality generating rejects . Building up of residues is a very slow and steady effect . Just a few defect parts could potentially affect a complete batch . Either this batch is supplied to customers and may weaken supplier ’ s rating if defects are detected or the batch needs to be sorted to remove parts with visual defects , which increases production cost .
Some polymers , additives and pigments are more likely to deposit during long production cycles . Polyamide , PVC , Acetals as well as many others do accumulate . Polyolefins leave wax as well as entrapped pigments on cavity surfaces .
The effects of build up are multiple and some are difficult to track :
• Knit lines , voids , blemishes are simple to check . It could be done directly on the machine .
• Partially clogged venting ( e . g . vented pins ) could be a bit more difficult to detect when it affects cavity filling for example .
• Textured surfaces ( e . g . matt dashboard part ) affected by incremental surface gloss are not easy to spot .
30 FDPP - www . fdpp . co . uk
To avoid part rejection , regular maintenance cycles should be implemented . Maintenance cycle length vary a lot pending on the mould ’ s complexity .
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE A custom moulder , producing a 1.6 kg part from flame-retarded PC + ABS was facing critical part aspect issues ( see picture 1 ). The long cycle time of 55 seconds also added to the importance of producing perfect visual parts . Important care was given to the handling of the mould , a simple touch with hands could potentially lead to extensive polishing of the tool . No abrasive nor manual cleaning method was allowed . The surface texture of this large mould was very sensitive . The cleaning method was restricted to cleaning of the cavities in the tool room . Each refurbishment cost was estimated to 3 k € and two days of work . Due to heavy depositing on the mould , a refurbishment was necessary every two weeks .
In the middle of the production run , at the end of the semi-manual cycle , an initial trial was made by spraying Lusin ® MC1718 directly on the moving part of the mould ( visual half ). After approximately 30 seconds of reaction time , the machine started in semiautomatic mode again .