Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155156 (2004) 12011206

A new process of gas-assisted injection molding for faster cooling

Seong-Yeol Han
a,
, Jin-Kwan Kwag
b
, Cheol-Ju Kim
b
, Tae-Won Park
c
, Yeong-Deug Jeong
d
a
Graduate School of Precision Mechanical Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan, South Korea
b
NARA M&D Co., Ltd, 50-1, Changwon, Gyeong Nam, South Korea
c
Department of Computer Aided Die and Mold, Changwon Polytechnic College, Changwon, Gyeong Nam, South Korea
d
School of Mechanical Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan, South Korea
Abstract
Gas-assisted injection molding (GAIM) process, that can be used to provide a hollow shape in a molding, is a variant of the conventional
injection molding process. GAIM has many advantages such as reduction of material, sink mark, warpage, and lower injection pressure.
Thus, GAIM has been widely applied in the industry to make moldings with a hollow channel such as handles, TV frames and so on. On
the other hand, GAIM has some disadvantages such as slow cooling time and ow marks. In the disadvantages, hot gas core causes slow
cooling of a molding and post-warpage.
To solve these problems, we devised a new GAIM process that has been called the reverse gas injection molding (RGIM). The RGIM
has two special units; one is the overow buffer, which is used for reduction of a material, and the other the air unit, which is used for faster
cooling of a molding. Through experiments verifying the efciency of the cooling in the RGIM process, it was found that the efciency of
the RGIM process was approximately 50% better than the conventional GAIM process. Also, this experimental result was conrmed in
the numerical calculations and CAE simulations.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gas-assisted injection molding (GAIM); Reverse gas injection molding (RGIM); Air unit; Overow buffer
1. Background on gas-assisted injection molding
Injection molding represents the most important process
for manufacturing plastic parts. It is suitable for mass pro-
ducing articles, since raw material can be converted into a
molding by a single procedure [1]. According to Rosato [2],
1986, approximately 32% by weight of all plastic parts are
manufactured by the injection molding process. Injection
molding is widely used in the manufacture of a variety of
plastic components in consumer and commercial products.
Recently, an innovative injection molding process, called
gas-assisted injection molding (GAIM) [3,4], was developed
for producing parts with hollow shapes. The GAIM pro-
cess has been known for more than 25 years. The original
idea of GAIM came from the so-called injection blowing
method, which is widely used, particularly for the fabrica-
tion of bottles and other relatively small hollow bodies. The
use of pressurized gas for a conventional plastic injection

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cozyhan@mail1.pknu.ac.kr (S.-Y. Han),
yeky@nara-mnd.co.kr (J.-K. Kwag), ryh4851@nara-mnd.co.kr
(C.-J. Kim), twpark@kopo.or.kr (T.-W. Park), ydjung@pknu.ac.kr
(Y.-D. Jeong).
molding process is believed to have been rst made com-
mercially available by the invention of Friederich, which is
disclosed in US Patent No. 4,101,167 issued July 18, 1978.
The Friendrich patent solved the problem of molding hollow
shape bodies in a single injection molding operation [5].
Specically, during those early years, the industry paid
most of its attention on the use of structural foam as a spe-
cial process used for molding relatively thick-sectioned ar-
ticles. These parts are light in weight and have acceptable
surface nish, i.e., without sink marks that are associated
with conventional plastic injection molding. In recent years,
attention has been concentrated on the use of gas assistance
with conventional plastic injection molding to achieve high
product quality and productivity. Good surface quality, short
cycle times, lower clamp tonnage, material saving, weight
reduction and minimization of part distortion or warpage
can all be achieved with proper utilization of gas assistance
into a conventional plastic injection molding process.
There are two methods in conventional GAIM. The one
is short shot. The short shot is sequentially done by fol-
lowing a simple three-step process. In the short shot pro-
cessing, a molten polymer is initially lled in cavity about
7598% by ram speed control of the injection molding ma-
chine. After a short delay period, compressed nitrogen gas
0924-0136/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.338
1202 S.-Y. Han et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155156 (2004) 12011206
cores out the molten polymer, lling the remainder of the
mold. The next step is the gas packing stage that compen-
sates for the volumetric shrinkage of the polymer melt. As
the plastic solidies, the gas expands into volume created by
shrinkage, locally packing out the part [6]. The short shot
method is used for thick section moldings, typically handles
and tubular components. The advantage of the short shot is
reduction in molded plastic weights. However, surface de-
fects such as hesitation mark [7] may be visible when the
gas is injected too late or the initial gas pressure is too low.
The other is full shot. The full shot is injected to ll or
nearly ll the mold cavity, but the plastic is not packed by
an injection molding machine. After a selected time delay,
rst phase gas is injected. Second phase gas penetration oc-
curs to compensate for volumetric shrinkage of the plastic
as it cools. A uniform gas pressure is applied throughout the
plastic. Gas is exhausted to atmosphere or for recovery be-
fore mold opens. Plastic rell commences after the nozzle
valve is closed or after the plastic feed gate has solidied.
The full shot method is normally applicable for compo-
nents in which there are thick and thin sections. The gas
ows into the path of least resistance in the thicker sections
where the plastic interior is still in a molten state [5]. The
pushed melt needs to expel from the cavity to another place.
The place is called overow and wholly wastes material.
In the above two GAIM methods, there are been still some
disadvantages such as exploding at molding by high pres-
sure gas, surface dimmed by mixed gas and melt, limitation
of gas nozzle design and slow cooling of molding. In these
disadvantages, slow cooling of the molding is one of the
most important things connecting with a cycle time of man-
ufacturing. The interior temperature of a hollow shape is in-
creased by the injected gas, and rises almost to the melting
temperature. The heated gas in the hollow shape acts like
a hot core that causes the molding to cool slowly. Conse-
quently, the cycle of GAIM process would be lengthened.
2. Reverse gas injection molding (RGIM)
In conventional GAIM process, hesitation marks have
been needed to remove. The material for injection molding
has been needed to reduce more and more. The gas in a
hollow shape acting as hot core has been needed to remove
for faster cooling of molding. For satisfying these require-
ments, we devised a new GAIM process, the reverse gas in-
jection molding, which was registered in Korea Patent No.
0286015. There are some special units that include an air
unit that is used to vent and remove the hot nitrogen gas in
hollow shape and the overow buffer that is used to reduce
a material. Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the RGIM system.
The RGIM process is divided into four steps (Fig. 2). The
rst step is lling. A melt injected from a hot runner lls
the mold cavity about 98100% such as full shot method.
The second step is hollowing out the melt after a constant
delay time. A pressured gas is injected into the mold cavity.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the RGIM system.
The pressured gas makes a hollow shape. Synchronously,
the pushed melt that is still in a molten state in the middle of
cavity reversely re-enters into an overow buffer. The third
step is holding. The pressured gas acts as holding pressure.
The last step is air blowing. Completing holding phase for a
few seconds, air is blown for a few seconds by the air unit to
cool the molding and to remove the hot gas in hollow shape.
We applied a cutter that automatically acts to vent hot gas
by the air unit.
In the RGIM process, there are two differences from the
traditional GAIM process. The rst is that there isnt the
physical overow for the expelling of a melt. Instead of
expelling, the melt re-enters into the overow buffer by the
injected gas while hollowing out the melt. This step saves
material. So, this new GAIM process was named as the
RGIM. The second is that there is the air unit in this system.
This air unit vents and removes the hot gas for faster cooling
in the hollow shape by air blowing.
3. The injection molding experiments in the RGIM
process
The experimental equipments consisted of a mold
that included the function of the RGIM process, a gas
pressure-generating unit and an air unit. The mold has
one cavity and was used to make an electric microwaves
handle. The mold temperature was 50

C. The gas
pressure-generating unit was made by GAIN Technologies
[8]. The air unit is for cooling a molding (Fig. 3). The air
temperature was 15

C. We used the LG injection molding

machine (LGH 140N) (Fig. 4).
3.1. DOE for the RGIM process
The experiments were conducted to verify the main cool-
ing efciency of the RGIM with two kinds of polymers
that are general purpose polystyrene (GPPS, LG Chemi-
cal 25SPI) and polypropylene (PP, LG Chemical M580). To
increase efciency and condence of the experiment, we
planned the experiments with the Taguchi method [9]. The
S.-Y. Han et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155156 (2004) 12011206 1203
Fig. 2. Four steps of the RGIM process.
Fig. 3. Gas pressure-generating unit and air unit.
ANOVA in statistical software MINITAB
TM
was used for
the analysis of the experimental results [10]. Three injec-
tion variables that would have most effective on the molding
quality were selected. These were also used as variables in
the design of experiment (DOE). Table 1 shows the variables
and levels for the experiment.
Table 2 shows the DOE schedules for this experiment.
The experimental samples were molded ve times at each
process condition. After dismissing the rst and last samples,
the averaged value of the other three samples was taken as
input data.
Fig. 4. Injection molding machine.
3.2. Experiment and analysis for GPPS
The GPPS polymer was used rst in the experiment. We
measured the temperature, length (Fig. 5) and weight of the
ejected moldings. Table 3 shows the measured values.
Table 1
Experimental variables and levels
Melt temperature
(

C)
Delay time for
air blowing (s)
Duration time for
air blowing (s)
Level 1 210 21 50
Level 2 220 31 60
Level 3 230 41 70
1204 S.-Y. Han et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155156 (2004) 12011206
Table 2
Design of experimental for the RGIM process
Process
condition
Melt
temperature
(

C)
Delay time
for air
blowing (s)
Duration time
for air
blowing (s)
1 210 21 50
2 210 31 60
3 210 41 70
4 220 21 60
5 220 31 70
6 220 41 50
7 230 21 70
8 230 31 50
9 230 41 60
Fig. 5. Molding produced by the RGIM.
The molding was rst molded without air blowing at melt
temperature 220

C with the GPPS. When the molding was

ejected, after cooling for 30 s in the mold, the tempera-
ture of the molding was 175

C. In the main experiment,

the seventh process condition showed the lowest molding
temperature in the ejected moldings. The highest molding
temperature was measured at the eighth. In between sev-
Table 3
Measured temperature, length and weight under each process condition
Process
condition
Molding
temperature
(

C)
Length 1
(mm)
Length 2
(mm)
Weight (g)
1 118.0 213.3 250.0 106
2 105.0 213.7 250.7 106
3 107.7 213.7 251.0 106
4 107.3 211.7 249.3 106
5 97.4 213.3 251.0 106
6 113.1 209.7 248.0 105
7 94.0 213.3 251.0 106
8 120.0 208.7 246.0 106
9 111.0 210.7 247.3 106
Fig. 6. S/N ratio plot of molding temperature for GPPS.
enth and eighth, the difference of the molding temperature
was 26

C. Comparing the molding temperature measured

in the seventh process condition with the molding tempera-
ture measured without air blowing, the efciency of cooling
in molding increased approximately 50%. In the length of
molding, the longest molding occurred in the third process
condition. The eighth process condition molded the short-
est molding. Although the process conditions changed, the
weight of moldings rarely changed.
The S/N ratio for the smaller is better characteristic was
calculated based on the measured molding temperature in
Table 3. The Fig. 6 shows that the duration of air blowing
was the main variable affecting cooling efciency, among
the three variables. The predicted optimum process was melt
temperature 220

C, delay time for air injection 21 s and

duration of air blowing 70 s by the ANOVA.
3.3. Experiment and analysis for PP
In the experiment of PP polymer, the values of tempera-
ture, length (Fig. 5), height and gloss of the ejected moldings
were measured. Table 4 shows the measured values.
Comparing the temperature of molding measured in
the third process condition with the temperature measured
without air blowing, the efciency of cooling in molding
increased about 45%. The length, heights and gloss of
moldings hardly changed.
The S/N ratio is calculated based on the measured mold-
ing temperature in Table 4. The Fig. 7 shows that the du-
ration of air blowing was a main variable affecting on the
Table 4
Measured temperature, length and weight under each process condition
Process
condition
Molding
temperature
(

C)
Length 1
(mm)
Height
(mm)
Gloss
(GU)
1 126.6 210.1 47.21 38.69
2 122.6 210.3 47.24 36.66
3 117.0 210.5 47.03 38.02
4 126.0 209.6 47.39 33.83
5 120.0 210.5 47.10 33.63
6 131.6 209.9 47.51 31.85
7 123.0 210.3 47.18 31.65
8 129.6 210.2 47.53 34.50
9 128.0 210.6 47.39 27.70
S.-Y. Han et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155156 (2004) 12011206 1205
Fig. 7. S/N ratio plot of molding temperature for PP.
molding temperature. The predicted optimum process was
melt temperature 210

C, delay time for air blowing 31 s and

duration of air blowing 70 s.
4. Numerical calculation of cooling time for the RGIM
The efciency of air blowing was calculated with a nu-
merical cooling equation. It needed to assume two cases
for the calculation of molding cooling time. The rst case
was that a molding was cooled without air blowing. The
second case was that a molding was cooled by air blowing
and heat transfer between mold and molding. Polycarbonate
(PC) polymer was used for calculating. The reason of us-
ing of PC that needs to be melt with high temperature was
clearly to show the efciency of this system.
PCs density () is 1.17 g/cm
3
, the diffusivity (R)
is 0.0004547 cal/s cm

C and the specic heat (C

p
) is
0.2319 cal/g

C. The melt temperature (T

M
) is 300

C, the
mold temperature (T
W
) was 60

C and the ejecting temper-

ature (T
E
) was 70

C.
The following Fourier cooling equation was used for cal-
culating cooling time [11]
t
c
=
s
2

ln

2
T
M
T
W
T
E
T
W

(1)
=
R
C
p
(2)
Fig. 9. Temperature distribution without air blowing during 30 s.
Fig. 8. Model for numerical calculation of heat transfer.
Table 5
Calculation equations for heat exchange [12]
Equations Values
Input heat Q = WC
p
T 6.981 kcal
Output heat Q
1
= h
a
A
1
(T
M
T
a
) 0.047 kcal/s
Q
2
= h
R
A
2
(T
M
T
W
) 0.0638 kcal/s
Where Q: total input calories through molding (kcal); W: weight of
model (g); C
p
: specic heat of model (kcal/g

C); T: difference between

melt temperature and ejecting temperature of molding (

C); Q
1
: calories
by heat transfer per second (kcal/s); h
a
: heat transfer coefcient of air
blowing (kcal/mm
2
h

C) 1.72E+8; A
1
: surface area of hollow shape
(mm
2
) 4.71E+5; T
M
: melt temperature (

C); T
a
: air temperature (

C);
Q
2
: calories removed by air blowing per second (kcal/s); h
R
: heat transfer
coefcient of mold (kcal/mm
2
h

C) 5.0E+7; A
2
: surface area of between
molding and mold (mm
2
) 1.41E+6; T
w
: mold temperature (

C).
where t
c
is the cooling time (s), s the wall thickness (mm),
the thermal diffusivity (mm
2
/s)In the rst result, the cooling
time without air blowing was 733 s as calculated with the
Fourier cooling Eq. (1).
For the second case, the calculated total input calories of
the molding was Q, the calories of heat transfer between
mold and molding per second was Q
1
and the removed calo-
ries by air blowing in molding per second was Q
2
. Fig. 8
shows the model for numerical calculation.
It was assumed that the amount of the removed calories
would be the average of the sum for the calories removed
by air blowing (Q
1
) and heat transfer (Q
2
). So, the cooling
time of molding was calculated 126 s. This cooling time by
air blowing was faster 5.5 times than the case 1 (Table 5).
1206 S.-Y. Han et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155156 (2004) 12011206
Fig. 10. Temperature distribution with air blowing during 20 s.
5. Temperature distribution simulation by marc
software
The heat transfer was simulated in order to verify the ef-
ciency of the RGIM about the mentioned two cases with the
MARC software. The rst case is that molding was cooled
without air blowing in the mold. The second case is that the
molding was cooled by air blowing and heat transfer be-
tween mold and molding in the mold. The material of the
model was PC. The mechanical properties and all conditions
for input data in the MARC were the same as the conditions
in the numerical calculation. When the air was not blown
into the hollow shape, the temperature of nitrogen gas and
air normally increased similar to the melting temperature.
So, it was assumed that the interior temperature of the hol-
low shape would be 200

C.
Fig. 9 shows temperature distribution of molding that was
cooled for 30 s without air place at the boundary between
mold wall and molding. But there was not a transfer of heat
at the hollow shape.
Fig. 10 shows a temperature distribution of molding with
air blowing for 20 s at the hollow shape. There was a heat
transfer by air blowing at the hollow and the temperature
at the hollow shape decreased to 70

C which is ideal for

ejecting from the mold.
6. Conclusion
The reverse gas injection molding was devised to solve
the problems of slow cooling time and to improve surface
quality on a molding produced in the conventional GAIM.
For verifying the feasibility of the RGIM process, the exper-
iment was conducted on the mold that was used to make mi-
crowave handles. In the experimental results, the efciency
of cooling on the RGIM process was better about 50% than
the conventional GAIM process. The results of the numer-
ical calculation and CAE simulation for the heat transfer
showed the feasibility of this system.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the BRAIN Korea 21 Project
and the NARA M&D Co. Ltd.
References
[1] G. Ptsch, W. Michaeli, Injection Molding: An Introduction, Hanser
Gardner Publication Inc., Cincinnati, 1995.
[2] Z. Tianmin, An investigation of gas-assisted injection molding: effects
of process variables on gas bubble formation, Ph.D. Thesis, The
Ohio State University, 1994.
[3] M. Chen, D. Yao, B. Kim, Optimization of process conditions in
gas assisted injection molding, in: Proceedings of the ANTEC 2001,
Dallas, TX, 2001, pp. 754758.
[4] E. Moritzer, H. Potente, Theoretical and practical results for the
gas injection molding process variant: melt displacement into an
overow cavity, in: Proceedings of the ANTEC96, Indianapolis,
1996, pp. 674678.
[5] J. Avery, Gas-Assist Injection Molding: Principles and Applications,
Hanser Gardner Publication Inc., Cincinnati, 2001.
[6] R.J. Crawford, Plastics Engineering, third ed., Butterworth-
Heinemann, England, 1998.
[7] C-MOLD, C-MOLD Design Guide: A Resource for Plastics Engi-
neers, third ed., Ithaca, New York, USA, 1999.
[8] J.F. Stevenson, Innovation in Polymer Processing Molding, Hanser
Gardner Publication Inc., Cincinnati, 1996.
[9] G.S. Peace, Taguchi Methods, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1993.
[10] Minitab, Users Guide 2: Data Analysis and Quality Tools, USA,
2002.
[11] G. Menges, P. Mohren, How to Make Injection Molds, second ed.,
Hanser Publishers, Munich, Vienna, New York, Barcelona, 1992.
[12] G. Menges, W. Michaeli, P. Mohren, How to Make Injection Molds,
third ed., Hanser Gardner Publications Inc., Cincinnati, 2000.