High-Performance Composites is read by qualified composites industry professionals in the fields of continuous carbon fiber and other high-performance composites as well as the associated end-markets of aerospace, military, and automotive.
Issue link: https://hpc.epubxp.com/i/101340
WORK IN PROGRESS Pressurized Water-based mold temperature control comes to composites W ater-based mold temperature control units (TCUs) have been used in the thermoplastic injection molding industry for decades. They have repeatedly proven to be reliable tools for quickly and accurately ramping mold temperatures up and down to meet fast cycle time requirements. In the composites industry, however, they have been slow to gain ground. Many manufacturers prefer to use electric cartridge heaters or oil-based mold temperature control systems. Electric cartridge heaters have appeal because they are easy to install and operate, but they don���t offer cooling capability. Critics also say they have been known to heat inconsistently. Oil-based systems are favored by molders of composites because of their familiarity, but they are slow to build temperature and, in the process, consume a great deal of energy. Putting claims to the test Active in the composites industry over the past couple of years, mold temperature control manufacturer SINGLE (Hochdorf, Germany and Charlotte, N.C.) has had success placing water-based mold TCUs with a few automotive composites molders ��� Mercedes, VW, BMW, Lamborghini and others ��� but SINGLE���s business development manager ��� composites, Kip Petrykowski, contends that the rest of the composites industry still has much to learn about fast, ef���cient mold temperature control. To help educate its prospective customers, SINGLE recently conducted studies to demonstrate for molders of composites the capabilities of water-based vs. oil-based and cartridge heater systems. In the process, the company amassed a signi���cant collection of performance data. Petrykowski reports that his company���s head-to-head comparisons of 24 | water-, oil- and electric cartridge-based mold TCUs have shed considerable light on the capabilities of each technology. Water vs. oil The ���rst trial compared the performance of two SINGLE TCUs, an H.02 pressurized water system and a D.02 oil-based system. Both units had been used previously in commercial production. The mold, supplied by Weber Manufacturing Technologies Inc. (Midland, Ontario, Canada), was a single-sided, externally plumbed test tool. Petrykowski notes that the test was conducted with control units the company happened to have in stock. For that reason, the oil unit had twice the heating capacity, 2.8 times the cooling capacity and 1.6 times the maximum rated ���ow of the pressurized-water unit. Also, the inside diameters of the oil unit���s heating and cooling inlets were 1.8 times larger than those of the water unit, giving the oil unit a signi���cant advantage in terms of potential ���ow rates through the mold. The results of the tests (Tables 1 & 2) indicate that the ���ow rate through the tool was greater with the oil unit, something Petrykowski says would be expected, with a ���ow of 100 liters/hr (2.4 gal/hr) compared to 60 liters/hr (15.9 gal/hr) for the water unit. The temperature differentials for incoming and outgoing ���uid in the oil unit averaged 3.75��C. The water unit averaged 2��C. Both numbers are within the range of typical values for tools ���owing at optimum rates. Based on this data, SINGLE reports it is unlikely that either system���s heat transfer ef���ciency would bene���t from additional ���ow. Not charted in the study was the fact that the oil unit averaged a 2.75��C temperature differential across the tool face, while the water unit averaged less than 1��C. However, even with twice the heating capacity (24 kW vs. 12 kW), 2.8 times the cooling capacity (116 kW vs. 41 kW) and high-performance composites 1.6 times the ���ow rate (100 liters/min vs. 60 liters/min), the oil unit was unable to heat or cool the mold faster than the water unit. The oil unit also consumed 69 percent more electricity. The limitation of greatest concern for the oil unit, says Petrykowski, is the large temperature difference between the TCU and the mold surface. The temperature of the mold surface should, ideally, closely match the temperature control set point to minimize uncertainty about mold temperature parameters. Water vs. electric cartridge heater SINGLE also compared a pressurized water TCU with an electric cartridge unit. The mold here was a two-sided 18 kg/39.7 lb test mold. During the test, mold temperature readings for both units were taken at one-minute intervals, using a surface pyrometer placed at the center of each mold surface. The temperature of the waterbased units��� outgoing and returning ���uid as it circulated through the mold and the energy it consumed were read directly from the controllers on the unit. The mold temperatures during the electric cartridge test were controlled by comparison of input received from a thermocouple placed in the mold to a temperature set point on the unit���s controller. The test mold, says Petrykowski, was not optimized for water ���ow and, therefore, allowed a ���ow of only 9 liters/min. Further, the waterbased TCU was the smallest SINGLE unit available and was rated at only 6 kW ��� one-���fth the rated capacity of the electric cartridge unit. The material used to mold the part was a ���ber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Tables 3 & 4 show the results from the pressurized water vs. electric cartridge tests. The readings, notes Petrykowski, indicate that the water-heated mold cy-