injection molding energy conservation seminar: modern injection molding david o. kazmer, p.e., ph.d....
Post on 19-Dec-2015
220 views
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
• 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
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 $4.20/ft2
– Maintenance rate 10% 20%
Agenda
• Modern Molding Technologies• Economic Structures & Data• Evaluation of Injection Molding
– Class 0: Obsolete– Class 1: Standard– Class 2: Efficient– Class 3: Lights Out
• Competitive Strategies• Conclusions
Evaluation of Injection Molding
• Case Study for a Mid-Sized Molder– 200 million parts per year– Average part weight: 10g
Class 0: ObsoleteOperating Conditions
• 8 cavities/mold with cold runners• Poorly selected hydraulic machines (26 kW)• 50 seconds per cycle (optimistic)
– Cooling issues & semi-automatic
• 95% quality level (optimistic)• 1 operator per 1 machine• 1 eng/mgt per 15 operators• 2 shifts, 5 days per week• 4 hour setup per 10,000 parts
Class 0: ObsoleteCost Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
To
tal
Pro
du
ctio
n C
ost
($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: StandardCost Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
To
tal
Pro
du
ctio
n C
ost
($M
illi
on
s)
New England China
Facilities
Labor
Energy costs
Resin costs
Class 2: EfficientOperating Conditions
• 32 cavities/mold with hot runners• Electric machines (26 kW)• 40 seconds per cycle, fully automatic• 99% quality level• 1 operator per 4 machine• 1 eng/mgt per 15 operators• 3 shifts, 5 days per week• 1 hour setup per 10,000 parts
Class 2: EfficientCost Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
To
tal
Pro
du
ctio
n C
ost
($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 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
• 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
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
• 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
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