8 Venting

Venting is normally considered a minor aspect of mold design, and frequently

­neglected until molding trials indicate mold inadequacies related to venting. An
understanding of the purpose and function of vents can assist the mold designer to
design vents where clearly needed and ensure that the mold can accommodate
additional vents if required.

„ 8.1 Venting Design Objectives

8.1.1 Release Compressed Air

The primary function of the vent is to release the air in the mold that is being
­displaced by the highly pressurized plastic melt. If all the air in the cavity is not
removed during the filling stage, then several defects can result.
ƒ First, the trapped air can form a highly pressurized pocket in the mold cavity
through which the melt cannot flow, forming a short shot in the molded prod-
uct [1].
ƒ Second, the highly compressed, high temperature gas can combust in the pres-
ence of the plastic melt, causing a phenomenon known as “dieseling” and a
defect known as “burn marks” [2]. If the burn marks appear on an aesthetic
surface, the molder should reject the molded part.
ƒ Third, the presence of gas between two converging melt fronts can reduce the
part strength due to interference of the air with the two welding melts while
also forming v-notches on the surface of the molded part that act as a stress
concentration during the part’s end-use [3].
270 8 Venting

8.1.2 Contain Plastic Melt

Since a lack of venting is associated with several significant defects, many wide
and thick vents are desirable at different locations to facilitate the air flow out of
the cavity. However, if a vent is too thick, then the polymer melt can seep out of the
vent, causing a thin but sharp line of plastic flash to form at the vent locations. In
many molding applications, this flash needs to be trimmed by the machine opera-
tor using a deburring tool. Such deflashing is undesirable since the operator incurs
labor cost yet does not provide 100% consistency. Furthermore, if a molder contin-
ues operation with excessive flashing, then the mold’s parting plane can wear and
require resurfacing. For these reasons, fewer and smaller vents are preferred.
However, the design and location of vents must be reasonable for the mold to be
effective.

8.1.3 Minimize Maintenance

The use of vents also provides more features on the mold that can require mainte-
nance. Many polymers will off-gas when molten, releasing plasticizers and other
organic materials that can off-gas and clog the venting system. Such clogged vents
can occur especially quickly with the use of mold release. As a result, the molding
process may intermittently develop defects related to a lack of venting. Many mold-
ers resolve this issue by incorporating vent cleaning as part of a preventive main-
tenance program. In any case, the mold designer should strive to design venting
systems that require minimal maintenance, and are easy to maintain when re-
quired.

„ 8.2 Venting Analysis

A three-step analysis process is recommended for the analysis and design of vents.
First, the air displacement rate should be estimated relative to the melt flow rate.
Second, the number, type, and location of vents must be assessed. Third, the width,
length, and thickness of each vent must be specified. With respect to the thickness
selection, the thickness must be greater than some minimum value to ensure ade-
quate venting while also smaller than some maximum amount to avoid excessive
flashing.
 8.2 Venting Analysis 271

8.2.1 Estimate Air Displacement and Rate

The amount of air displaced will be approximately equal to the volume of the
­injected plastic. The term “approximately” is used here to imply that the air will
expand somewhat when contacted by the hot plastic melt. However, the heated air
will also cool somewhat as it flows past the surface of the mold. For these reasons,
the analysis here will assume that the volumetric flow rate of the air will equal the
volumetric flow rate of the melt.

Example:

The volumetric flow rate of the melt for the bezel was 125 cc/s. This will be
­assumed for the air flow rate.


8.2.2 Identify Number and Location of Vents

Next, it is necessary to identify the locations where the venting is needed. These
locations may seem obvious, but on closer consideration these locations may not
be so trivial to identify. There are generally three different types of locations where
venting is necessary, as shown in Figure 8.1. The first type of vent is required
where the melt converges at an edge of the mold’s parting plane or other shut-off
surface. The second type of vent is required where two melts converge to form a
knit or weld line. The third type of vent is required where the melt converges at a
dead pocket in the mold. Each of these scenarios will next be briefly discussed.

Figure 8.1 Vent locations by type

272 8 Venting

Figure 8.1 suggests many potential locations of gas traps and corresponding vent
locations around the bezel’s parting plane and shut-off surfaces. Some of these
vents, including the four locations near the gates and the four locations at the
­corners may not be necessary since the melt flow is predominantly radial. Since
the flow is radial, the melt should reach the edges of the mold without trapping any
air, and continue displacing the air further into the unfilled cavity. Thus, there is
no need for a vent at those locations. However, the exact melt front behavior may
change slightly and it is not uncommon for the melt to trap gas at locations along
the parting line as indicated as Ê in Figure 8.2. While the vents near the gate and
at the corner may be considered as optional, the mold designer may choose to spec-
ify vent locations at these locations to avoid potential mold changes later. The vent
locations at the end of flow indicated at bottom left of Figure 8.2 should be included
since a significant fraction of the displaced air from the cavity will likely exit here.

Figure 8.2 Vent locations on shut-off surface

The second type of vent is required where two melt fronts converge as Ë in Fig-
ure 8.3. In this case, two concave melt fronts can come together and form an en-
trapment from which the air cannot escape. As indicated in Figure 8.3, a vent is
therefore required on an internal surface of the mold cavity. Usually, ejector pins
are designed to provide such venting functions on the surface of the mold cavity.
 8.2 Venting Analysis 273

Figure 8.3 Vent locations on part interior

The third type of vent occurs at dead pockets in the mold. The exact locations are
not always obvious, so three examples are provided as Ì in Figure 8.4. In the left
detail, the melt flows from the cavity surface along the length of the boss, and
eventually traps the air at the end of the boss. In the center detail, two melt fronts
come together at a rib, pushing the air to the top dead center of the rib. In the right
detail, the melt front flows diagonally across a rib. Due to a cutout in the rib, the air
can be trapped in this corner of the mold cavity. There are approximately twenty
such dead pockets in the bezel design that may require venting.

Figure 8.4 Vent locations in dead pockets

The above discussion and further inspection indicate that there are about three
dozen vent locations that the mold designer may wish to consider. It is unlikely
that all of these vent locations are necessary. Furthermore, the addition of vents is
274 8 Venting

usually a relatively simple operation that can be accomplished after the mold is
built and tested. For this reason, it is fairly common for the mold designer to ini-
tially specify vents at only the most critical vent locations.

Example:

For the bezel mold, the mold design will initially specify seven vent locations as
indicated in Figure 8.5.


Figure 8.5 Initial vent locations

8.2.3 Specify Vent Dimensions

Once the number of vents is specified, the rate of air flow through each vent can be
calculated. It may seem reasonable to estimate the air flow through each vent as
the total volumetric air flow divided by the number of vents. However, this ap-
proach would not be conservative. The reason is that the exact location of the end
of fill is not known. As such, it is possible that much of the air flow can dispro­
portionately favor any one of the four locations on each side of the part. A more
conservative approach is to assume that all the local air flow exits through each
available vent.

Example:

The assumed flow rate of the air for the bezel was 125 cc/s. This total flow rate
will certainly be split into two air flows, each with a flow rate of 62.5 cc/s, ­towards
the top and bottom sets of vents. Since the exact flow rate to each vent is un-
known, the analysis will assume that each vent be designed for a volumetric flow
rate of 62.5 cc/s.

 8.2 Venting Analysis 275

In general, the length and width of the vent are determined by the application
­geometry. The minimum vent thickness is related to the pressure drop across the
vent necessary to release the displaced air. The minimum thickness can be derived
using analysis of the air as a laminar, viscous flow according to the Newtonian
model previously presented. While air flowing through vents may be better mod-
eled as a compressible, turbulent flow, the following analysis is simpler while also
extremely conservative [4]. The pressure drop of a Newtonian fluid in a rectangu-
lar channel is:

(8.1)

The minimum thickness of a vent can then be evaluated from the width and length
of the vent as:

(8.2)

where μair is the apparent viscosity of the air, equal to 1.8 × 10−5 Pa s, is the vol-
umetric flow rate of air through the vent, ∆Pair is the specified pressure drop of air
across the vent, and the other variables are the vent dimensions.

Example:

Evaluate the minimum thickness of a typical vent required to vent the displaced
air at low air pressures.
A conservative analysis assumes air flow at 100 cc/s through a single vent with
a width of 10 mm and length equal to 5 mm. To avoid compressing the gas and
further increases in the melt pressure, the allowable pressure drop across the
vent is specified as one atmosphere (14.7 psi or 0.1 MPa). The viscosity of air at
room temperature is 1.8 × 10–5 Pa s. Then, the minimum thickness is:

The analysis indicates that a vent thickness of 0.05 mm is sufficient for this case,
and could be further decreased if the vent were wider or shorter, or if there was
less air flow or a higher pressure drop was tolerable. This result, derived by anal-
ysis, is a common recommendation in industry [5–8].


It is again emphasized that the previous analysis and example are conservative
since:
ƒ the analysis assumed laminar flow for the air and so suggests higher pressure
drops and the need for thicker vents than a turbulent flow,
ƒ the geometry and process conditions apply to a single, small vent with rela-
tively high air flow, and
276 8 Venting

ƒ the assumed viscosity of air at room temperature is higher than would occur if
the air were heated by the polymer melt or compression. For these reasons, the
minimum thickness of the vent will not generally be a limiting design con-
straint.
The maximum size of the vent is related to the maximum amount of flashing that
is tolerable at the vent locations. The formation of flashing in extremely thin chan-
nels such as vents is an advanced research topic, requiring transient simulation
coupling the heat transfer and fluid flow as well as a highly refined mesh with very
small time steps. No simple analytical solution exists. However, for the purpose
of discussion only, consider the application of laminar viscous flow. The average
volumetric flow rate of the melt during the flashing is:

Substituting this relation into the Newtonian flow model of Equation 8.1 and solv-
ing for the thickness provides the upper constraint on the thickness of the vent:

(8.3)

where Pmelt is the melt pressure at the vent inlet. When the melt first reaches the
vent, the melt pressure exerted on the edge of the vent is zero. For the purpose of
analysis, the melt pressure can be conservatively assumed as the melt pressure
ramp rate times the time for the flashing to solidify:

(8.4)

For most injection molding processes, the melt pressure ramp rate is less than
100 MPa/s. The flashing time is related to the solidification time of the polymer
melt in the vent.

Example:

Evaluate the maximum thickness of a typical vent using Equation 8.3.

Assuming a vent thickness on the order of 0.06 mm, the gate freeze time
­equations provided in Table 7.4 can be used to estimate that the approximate
time for the melt to solidify while flashing is 0.003 s. Given this solidification time,
the flashing should solidify by the time the melt pressure reaches:
 8.3 Venting Designs 277

Since the vent is thin, there will be significant shear thinning so a low viscosity of
10 Pa s is assumed. Substituting these values, the maximum thickness of the
vent is:

For example, if a flash length of 0.2 mm is allowed, then the maximum thickness
of the vent is 0.08 mm. For comparison, the minimum thickness for the vent re-
quired to provide adequate air flow is 0.06 mm. If less flashing was desired, then
more and wider vents could be used to reduce the required air flow, after which
the vent thickness could be reduced to reduce flashing while providing adequate
air flow.


Since the above analysis may be difficult to apply given the requisite assumptions,
several recommendations for vent thickness are listed in Table 8.1 from various
handbooks. The differences in the recommendations are interesting and explain-
able in part. The majority of the variance likely stems from the fact that there has
been a long-term trend in the plastics industry to move to thinner walls, faster in-
jection rates, and higher injection pressures; the maximum thickness of the vent
decreases with increasing melt pressure. At the same time, material manufactur-
ers have sought to reduce the viscosity of plastic resins while improving structural
properties. Accordingly, it should not be surprising that the technical standards for
vents change, with thinner vents being recently recommended.

Table 8.1 Recommended Vent Thicknesses (mm)

Plastic Glanvill (1965, [5]) Rosato (1986, [6]) Menges (2001, [7])
Low-viscosity ­materials: 0.08 0.1 0.015
PP, PA, POM, PE
Medium-viscosity 0.2 0.3 0.03
­materials:
PS, ABS, PC, PMMA

„ 8.3 Venting Designs

8.3.1 Vents on Parting Plane

The first type of vent to be considered is the vent on the parting plane. These vents
are commonly provided as very thin channels directly at the end of flow or at weld
278 8 Venting

lines. Many molds are produced with vents on the parting plane that emanate from
the edge of the parting line outward to a thicker vent “relief” or vent “channel.”
Figure 8.6 provides a venting system design for the bezel, in which two vents have
been provided on the inside and outside surfaces of the cavity insert. The width of
the vent, W, has been made purposefully high to provide for uncertainty in the last
area of the melt to fill the cavity. The thickness of the vent, hvent , has been specified
as 0.05 mm. The length of the vent, L, is 2 mm, after which the air flows through a
2 mm thick channel to a 3 mm diameter outlet located at the center and top of the
insert.

Figure 8.6 Vent design on parting plane

While vents should be provided on the parting plane at the end of fill, it is not un-
common for vents to be placed periodically around the periphery of the cavity. For
the molding of center-gated cylindrical parts, vents can be placed around the pe-
 8.3 Venting Designs 279

riphery of the entire mold cavity as shown in Figure 8.7. In this design, the cavity
for a lid is center-gated as in a three-plate or hot runner mold. A vent is placed
around the entire periphery of the mold cavity. Given the ample vent width, the
vent is specified with a thickness of 0.015 mm and a length of 1 mm. A vent chan-
nel connects the vent ring to the side of the insert and subsequent outlets.

Figure 8.7 Vent design around cylindrical part

While the above designs are certainly effective with respect to venting the dis-
placed air, it should be mentioned that they are susceptible to flashing with bend-
ing of the mold plates. As will later be discussed in the structural design of Chap-
ter 12, the melt pressure exerts significant forces on the mold cavity and core. Any
significant deflection will tend to increase the thickness of the vents and thereby
increase the likelihood and amount of flashing. Indeed, the design of Figure 8.7
may be especially problematic since the outside, bottom surface of the lid is an
area observed and handled by the end-user. The use of an internal vent around the
periphery of a stripper plate will resolve this issue as later designed in Section
11.3.4.
280 8 Venting

To avoid excessive flashing and associated maintenance, it is recommended that

vents on the parting plane be used sparingly with a thickness on the order of
0.02 mm. If venting is subsequently found to be inadequate, then additional vents
can be added or the thickness of existing vents increased.

8.3.2 Vents around Ejector Pins

A very common practice is to use the clearance around ejector pins for venting
purposes. There are many advantages to this vent design. First, the actuation of
the ejector serves to at least partially clear the venting channel between the pin
and the core. Second, ejector pins are commonly used and well understood. Since a
clearance needs to be specified around the pin to provide a sliding fit anyways, it is
economical to specify a clearance suitable for venting.
Holes for ejector pins are normally drilled and subsequently reamed. In mold man-
ufacturing, the diametral clearance between the ejector pin and ejector hole is typ-
ically 0.13 mm (0.005 in), which leaves a 0.065 mm (0.0025 in) thickness on each
side for venting. While this is somewhat larger than previously suggested vent
thicknesses, this thicker clearance around the ejector pins is recommended for
several reasons. First, the clearance is useful to avoid increased sliding friction and
ejector pin buckling. Second, ejector pins are usually machined through solid steel,
so increased flashing due to parting plane deflection is unlikely. Third, any witness
lines associated with flashing at the ejector pins are usually located on n
­ onaesthetic
surfaces.
Figure 8.8 provides some typical venting design details using ejector pins. Detail B
shows an ejector blade and an ejector pin that have been assigned clearance, H, for
venting. For both these ejectors, a venting channel has been provided up to 3 mm
away from the mold cavity surface, after which the channel tapers down to the
nominal bore of the ejector hole. Both of these elements should be present in a
good ejector pin design. The larger channel serves to reduce the flow resistance of
the air while also assisting in the assembly of the ejector pins to the mold. The
­taper is useful to guide the head of the pin during mold assembly.
The vent length, L, of 3 mm has been chosen for illustrative purposes and is cer-
tainly not mandatory. The previous air flow analysis with Equation 8.2 implies that
the standard clearance of 0.05 mm between an ejector pin and its hole will provide
significant air flow for venting. For this reason, it is possible to extend the length of
the vent to a location that is convenient. For instance, it may be desirable to avoid
a large vent channel near cooling lines. As another example, a mold may be more
economically produced with the same vent section through the majority of the core
insert, tapering to a larger size only where the core insert faces the support plate.
 8.3 Venting Designs 281

Figure 8.8 Vent design around ejector pin and blade

8.3.3 Vents in Dead Pockets

For venting gas traps in dead pockets, one approach is to use a mold insert for the
purpose of venting. Figure 8.9 shows a design in which a rectangular pocket has
been machined in the core insert, into which a vented insert has been placed. As
shown in Detail A, the vent only spans the width of the rib where the trapped air is
expected. As shown in Details B and C, the vent has a thickness, H, of 0.05 mm and
a length, L, of 2 mm. Afterwards, a wider vent channel has been placed behind the
vent. Since there is no ejector pin, there is no need for a smooth transition between
the vent and the vent channel.
282 8 Venting

Figure 8.9 Vent design in core insert

It should be noted that the venting function of the insert provided in Figure 8.9
could have also been provided by using an ejector blade at the same location. The
ejector blade likely could have been provided at lower cost while also facilitating
the ejection of the part. As such, venting inserts are not especially common.

8.3.4 Vents with Porous Metals

Another design alternative for venting in dead pockets is the incorporation of a
sintered vent, such as pictured in Figure 8.10, which is a type of mold insert that
can be used for releasing gas in dead pockets [9]. These devices are relatively small
in size, typically ranging from 2 mm to 12 mm in diameter, and contain many
small vent holes in sizes ranging from 0.03 to 0.1 mm in diameter. Given their
small size and non-machinable top surface, sintered vents are best placed with
their venting surface flush with flat mold cavity surfaces. Furthermore, sintered
vents can require intermittent replacement or maintenance as the micro-channels
may clog without any easy method for in-mold cleaning.
 8.3 Venting Designs 283

Figure 8.10 Vent design in core insert

As an alternative to a sintered vent, vent inserts or even large portions of the mold
can be machined from porous metals such as Porcerax II, a metal matrix composite
produced by International Mold Steel, Inc. [10]. Porous metals allow trapped gases
to escape directly from the cavity surface through the steel, thereby permitting
molding of fine details without venting concerns. This particular porous metal has
a porosity around 25% with an interconnected system of pores available in two
sizes. A 20 μm pore size provides the greatest venting, but a 7 μm pore size is rec-
ommended for general use with resins such as ABS, polyethylene, and polypropyl-
ene. Polymer melts can tend to clog the pores, so an automated pneumatic system
is recommended to reverse the air flow after each shot to purge the residue from
the pores. Porcerax II has mechanical properties similar to aluminum 7075-T6
with a strength around 480 MPa (70,000 psi) and a hardness around 38 HRC.
Porous metals will tend to provide a matte surface so are most often used as inserts
on the core side of the mold to reduce aesthetic concerns. They are best machined
by electrical discharge machining to avoid crushing and blocking the system of
interconnected pores. However, traditional machining and grinding can be used
followed by stone polishing to provide matte or low-gloss surfaces. The need for
cooling of porous metals should be avoided by selective use and shaping of the
material near portions of the mold providing high heat transfer. International Mold
Steel, Inc. indicates that cooling lines can be machined into Porcerax II followed by
electroless nickel plating or sealing. However, given the porous structure of the
metal matrix composite, cyclic application of molding pressure is likely to cause
minute flexure and fatigue cracks that will cause leakage and oxidation of the
­porous metal. If cooling is needed, then routing of copper cooling lines within ma-
chined channels is recommended.
284 8 Venting

8.3.5 3D Printed Porous Inserts

Advances in 3D printing of metals has progressed to the point where mold inserts
can be additively manufactured including selectively porous sections for venting.
The three most promising additive manufacturing processes for making porous
mold inserts are Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS, [11]), Selective Laser Melting
(SLM, [12]), and binder jet printing [13]. Of these three processes, DMLS currently
provides the best combination of print resolution and part strength. In this process
[11], the laser path for each layer is planned with hexagonal or grid spacing to
leave portions of the printed layers unsintered. The unsintered powder can then be
removed to provide air channels that can be used for venting in mold inserts.
Figure 8.11 provides an overview of the experimental validation of a porous insert
made by DMLS with 20 μm air channels. The porous insert was made of maraging
stainless steel powder with average powder particle size of 13 μm. A lasing power
of 50 W was applied to a layer thickness of 30 μm with a scanning speed of
200 mm/s and a hatch spacing of 60 μm. The resulting air channels had an aver-
age diameter of around 40 μm but uneven surfaces that could be prone to stress
concentration or clogging. Still, a design of experiments was conducted to charac-
terize the effect of the printing factors on the surface hardness and permeability of
the porous inserts. The results indicated that converging cavities were much better
replicated with the porous inserts than solid inserts that trapped gas as shown in
Figure 8.11.

3D printed micro-pores
Vent
Solid insert 40 um
Trapped air

Short shot
3D printed porous insert

Figure 8.11 Mold design comparing cavity filling with solid and porous inserts [11]

As with porous metals described in the last section, there are trade-offs between
the porosity of the material, gas permeability for venting, and apparent hardness.
Indeed, the hardness of the 3D printed stainless steel at best approached the 35
HRC of International Mold Steel’s Porcerax II. The 3D printed channels will like-
wise tend to clog over time, so reverse air pressure is recommended in molding
applications. Still, DMLS vents have some benefits over machined porous metals,
including the integrated design and manufacture of dense and porous regions so
that inserts may include venting functions within rigid, cooled, 3D printed inserts.
 8.4 Venting Best Practices 285

While the approach is still in its infancy, porous inserts were used for molding
speaker grilles in General Motors pickups to improve part ejection and venting
while simplifying mold maintenance [14]. To broadly increase industry adoption,
3D Systems and other additive manufacturing machine and service providers will
need to add porous metal printing to their material offerings.

„ 8.4 Venting Best Practices

8.4.1 Venting Simulation

Injection molding simulations (including Moldex3D, Autodesk/Moldflow, and
SolidWorks/Plastics) are also able to model mold filling with modeling of the air
flow through the cavity and vents. Such simulation is not the default since it re-
quires explicit marking of the vent locations. Instead, the default model assumes
that the mold cavity is evacuated of air and so venting is not an issue. The results
of the mold filling analysis can then be used to indicate the need for location of
vents at the end of flow, at weld lines, in dead pockets, etc. as described in Sec-
tion 8.3. The use of vent modeling is recommended as it provides validation of the
vent locations and sizing. Any gross errors in venting will likely have observable
and adverse effects on the mold filling process.
To demonstrate the venting simulations, simulations were performed in Autodesk/
Moldflow with the venting option activated, with a starting air temperature of
30 °C and an air pressure of 0.1 MPa. The hot runner system design of Section
6.5.1 was modeled as a series of beam elements having a diameter of 10 mm for
the hot sprue, 8 mm for the manifold runners and nozzles, and tapering to 1.5 mm
for a thermal gate. The hot runner was moved 4 mm past the mid-plane of the bezel
but otherwise the conditions were identical as earlier described. Figure 8.12 pro-
vides the melt front advancement plots for decent venting at left and incorrect or
blocked venting at right. Here, the venting at left is just “decent” as venting should
be used at many other locations around the outside walls and inner ribs. Still, the
six most important vents are provided, including the four vents located near the
end of flow as well as the two vents located at the end of the bosses in the side
­insert.
286 8 Venting

Fill Time [s] Decent Venting Incorrect or Blocked Venting

0.36 Hot runner beams

0.24

0.12

Modeled vents (6)

Delayed filling

Figure 8.12 Melt front advancement plots in hot runner bezel mold with (left) decent and
(right) incorrect venting

When the four vents near the end of flow are removed or blocked as shown at right
in Figure 8.12, there is a small delay in the melt front advancement. There are
­different options for modeling the end of flow in molding simulations. In this
­Autodesk/Moldflow simulation, the process was set to complete the mold filling at
a constant injection pressure when the mold cavity was 99% full. As shown at left
in Figure 8.13, the injection pressure would be around 160 MPa and the flow rate
would start to decay but be sufficient to fill the mold. When the four vents were
removed, the compressed air at the converging flow fronts built up pressure such
that the injection pressure reached the specified maximum of 180 MPa when the
cavity was 97% full. The melt flow rate into the mold cavity started to decay and
short shots occurred as shown at right in Figure 8.13. Thus, simulation is a useful
tool in evaluating the potential for changes in injection pressure, clamp tonnage,
and short shots when inadequate venting is used.

Pressure [MPa] Decent Venting Incorrect or Blocked Venting

180
160 MPa 180 MPa

120

60

0 133 MPa 136 MPa

Short shots
129 MPa 132 MPa

Figure 8.13 Melt pressure contour plots in hot runner bezel mold with (left) decent and (right)
incorrect venting
 8.4 Venting Best Practices 287

8.4.2 Vent Sensing

Vents play an important role in ensuring a consistent process. In long production
runs, vent and process consistency may be monitored through the use of sensors
placed near the vent outlet. The two most common approaches are to model either
the vent temperature or the pressure. Buja [15] has taped thin wire thermocouples
(TC) having a diameter of 0.2 mm in the vent slot as shown at left in Figure 8.14.
Three 40 s molding cycles begin at time 0 as shown at right in Figure 8.14. The
primary region of interest is the increase in the sensed temperature, T, from the
minimum at the start of each cycle to its maximum at the end of the packing phase.
It is observed that the vent temperatures are increasing with continued molding
cycles. The time for the cycle to change from its minimum to maximum tempera-
ture also changes with the molding cycle.

T2,max T3,m
106 T1,max
Vent Temperature (°F)

105
t1 t2 t3
104
Taped TC 103
Vent slot
102 T2,min T3,min
101 T1,min
1 2 3
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (s)

Figure 8.14 (left) Vent thermocouple (TC) sensor and (right) resulting temperature data [15]

More recently, Rhee et al. [16] developed vent temperature and pressure sensors to
detect the adiabatic compression in the cavity. Their research suggested that air
pressure monitoring provides better sensitivity and response time than thermo-
couples. Specifically, their testing showed that the thermocouple temperature
­increased from 12 to 17 °C (a range similar to Buja [15]) when the air pressure
­increased from 0 to 6 bar. There was a very strong correlation between pressure
and temperature, with the air pressuring sensor providing much higher signal to
noise ratio. As part of a mold instrumentation and process control strategy, these
works [15, 16] show that vent sensing provides a relatively simple approach to
monitoring process consistency while also establishing a metric for preventive
vent maintenance.
288 8 Venting

„ 8.5 Chapter Review

Venting design and analysis is often neglected during mold design, with venting
channels placed after the mold is trialed and issues are identified. This approach
has some merit since all of the required venting locations may not be known until
the mold filling patterns are verified. However, a complete lack of analysis and
foresight regarding venting can lead to significant mold defects, time-consuming
mold changes, and costly product development delays.
After reading this chapter, you should understand:
ƒ the need for locating vents: 1) around the periphery of the part on the parting
plane, 2) internal to the cavity where two or more melt fronts can form a gas
trap, and 3) in dead spots where the air cannot escape,
ƒ the different types of vents that can be designed, including those on the part-
ing plane, around ejector pins, adjacent to core inserts, and using venting in-
serts made with porous metals or 3D printing,
ƒ how to calculate the thickness of a vent given the required air flow without
causing flash,
ƒ how molding simulation can be used to detect potential issues with inadequate
or blocked vents, including melt pressure increases, mold filling delays, and
potential short shots.
The next chapter examines the mold cooling system, whose purpose is to provide
maximum and uniform heat transfer from the hot polymer melt to the mold cool-
ant. Afterwards, the mold’s ejector and structural systems will be designed and
analyzed.

References
[1] Kim, B., J. Gim, J. Jeon, T. Jeong, E. Han, and B. Rhee, Development of the monitoring methods of the
vent clogging in the injection mold, AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing LLC (2020) 2205(1),
p. 020015
[2] Rosen, M., Good Venting: It’s a key requirement for quality injection—molded parts—here’s how to
achieve it, Plastics Engineering (2015) 71(6): pp. 34–38
[3] Pham, S. M. and T. Do Thanh, A study on the welding line strength of composite parts with various
venting systems in injection molding process, Key Engineering Materials, Trans Tech Publications
Ltd. (2017) 737: pp. 70–76
[4] Munson, B. R., T. H. Okiishi, W. W. Huebsch, and A. P. Rothmayer, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics,
Wiley Global Education (2012)
[5] Glanvill, A. B. and E. N. Denton, Injection-Mould Design Fundamentals, Industrial Press (1965)
[6] Rosato, D. V. and D. V. Rosato, (Eds.), Injection Molding Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Com­
pany, New York (1985)
[7] Menges, G., W. Michaeli, and P. Mohren, How to Make Injection Molds, 3rd ed., Hanser (2001) p. 409
 References 289

[8] Tang, S., Y. Kong, S. Sapuan, R. Samin, and S. Sulaiman, Design and thermal analysis of plastic
­injection mould, J. Mater. Process. Technol. (2006) 171: pp. 259–267
[9] Wieder, K. A., Mold vent and method, U. S. Patent No. 6,827,569, issued Dec. 7 (2004)
[10] Schade, T., The Potential of Enhanced Venting Materials, Moldmaking Technology Magazine, August
(2015)
[11] Kuo, C.-C. and X.-Y. Yang, Optimization of direct metal printing process parameters for plastic i­ njection
mold with both gas permeability and mechanical properties using design of experiments approach,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2020) 109(5): pp. 1219–1235
[12] Liu, C., Z. Mai, C. Zheng, S. Zhang, P. Wang, M. Jiang, Z. Liu, C. Lao, and Z. Chen, A Simple and
Convenient Approach to Fabricate Gas Permeable Mould Steel by Selective Laser Melting, Materials
Technology (2021): pp. 1–10
[13] Snelling, D. A., C. B. Williams, C. T. A. Suchicital, and A. P. Druschitz, Binder jetting advanced ceram-
ics for metal-ceramic composite structures, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology (2017) 92(1–4): pp. 531–545
[14] Malnati, P., SPE’s 48th Automotive Innovation Awards, Plastics Engineering (2019): pp. 55–58
[15] Buja, F. J., System for monitoring temperature and pressure during a molding process, U. S. Patent
No. 7,585,166, issued September 8 (2009)
[16] Kim, B., J. Gim, J. Jeon, T. Jeong, E. Han, and B. Rhee, Development of the monitoring methods of the
vent clogging in the injection mold, in AIP Conference Proceedings (2020) 2205(1) p. 020015