Reliability of alternative tooling

From: Lena Apelskog Killander (
Date: Thu Jun 19 1997 - 11:24:04 EEST

Thank you, for replying to the mail regarding reliability of tools, this is
a summary of the results posted back. My suggestion is that if you have
further information or question to add to this list. If you post them to me
I will continue to do updates.

These were the original questions:
1. What alternative tooling technique have you tried
2. How many parts were you able to injection mold into the tool
3. If the number of parts were less than the expected lifetime of the tool
is there an explanation to this?

New questions have been added to the original list from rp-ml
4. What kind of parts did you try to mould ? Size , min. feature size,
 surface, undercuts, inserts ?
5. Which kind of material did you inject ?

Here is a summary of methods tried so far, please comment if you have
suggestions for improvement!

1a. Aluminum filled epoxy-tools
2. 12 to 300 parts
3. With very complex parts the number of parts is limited

1b. Spray metal tools Zn-based
2. 20

1c. Lasersintered glass filled nylon
2. Expect 50 -100
5. PP and PC

1d. Electroforming of copper on stereolitography master, backing with
aluminum filled epoxy
2.over 2000 parts with no measurable wear on the tool. They only stopped at
this point because
they had proved a point about the life of the tool.
5. glass filled PP

1e. Rapid Tool
2. 50
3. No wear on the tool, but change of material caused problems
4. fairly complex part
5. PP

1f. Rapid Mold
2. 50
3. old crack in the tool propagated
4. fairly complex part
5. PP

1g. Others???

If you have other expereinces or questions that in your opinion should be
added to the list. Please send a mail, best regards, Lena Apelskog Killander

Lena Apelskog Killander
IVF, The Swedish Institute of Production Engineering Research

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:44 EEST