TECHNOLOGY | THIN WALL PACKAGING


of 3.95 s. For process monitoring, the 4-cavity mould from Brink was equipped with six high-reso- lution inductive position measuring and embossing sensors. Also part of the production cell was a side-entry robot from Brink that inserted the labels, removed the finished cups and stacked them on a conveyor belt. Arburg said special emphasis was placed on


Above: Netstal shone the


spotlight on its thin-wall packaging machines


The company said results for ICM compared to 200 g cups produced in standard injection mould- ing included: a 14% reduction in the cycle time; a 34% reduction in material consumption; 27% more parts per packaging unit; 33% less CO2 equivalents. Compared with 200 g thermoformed cups with


cardboard band, Netstal said that ICM showed: plastic consumption was reduced by approximate- ly 20% (both cups without label); the labelled ICM cup was around 40% lighter than the labelled thermoformed cup (5.96 g vs 9.87 g); around 22% lower power consumption per kg of material throughput; 150% more parts per packaging unit; 28% less CO2 equivalents. The company said: “With this application we can


Right: Arburg’s Allrounder 720 A Ultimate machine


prove that cost efficiency and sustainability go hand in hand in injection moulding. The thin- walled ICM cup has a significantly better carbon footprint, even compared to the deep-drawn cup with a cardboard band.” Arburg also highlighted injection moulding and ICM as alternatives to thermoforming for PP cup production. In its thin-wall IML packaging display at Fakuma, the company showed an electric Allround- er 720 A Ultimate machine with a clamping force of 2,900 kN and equipped with a size 1300 injection unit that is specifically optimised for high perfor- mance. “Thanks to high-precision servo motors from Arburg’s sister company AMKmotion, very high injection volume flows and injection speeds of up to 400 mm per second can be achieved,” it said. In the demonstration, four PP cups, each weigh- ing 10.8 g and with a wall thickness of 0.37 mm were produced using ICM in a cycle time


16 INJECTION WORLD | January/February 2024


energy efficiency and on a part design that saves materials: “Thanks to the all-electric packaging machine in combination with ICM, the energy footprint is improved by 20% with a significant reduction in part weight from 13 to 10.8 g.” It continued: “Meanwhile, the flowpath/wall thickness ratio is 380:1. Normally, this would require a very high level of injection pressure – at the expense of energy requirements and mould wear. This is why ICM is used for this application. Compared to classic injection moulding, this process requires significantly less injection pres- sure and it is possible to work with mould tempera- tures of 20 instead of 12˚C.” Arburg also highlighted the sustainability advantage of the IML process used in the demon- stration. “The special ‘Next Cycle IML’ label [from MCC Verstraete] can be completely separated from the PP of the cup during recycling, so that the product can be recycled by type after use. In contrast to thermoforming, no pre-produced foils are used and no stamping waste is produced,” it said. Thin-wall packaging advances were shown by


Engel at Fakuma in a moulding demonstration of a 1.3-litre IML pail, which it claimed is the world’s lightest. The PP pail, weighing just over 26 g, was produced on an all-electric E-motion 765/280 T machine. It was equipped with the iQ motion control assistance system, which cuts cycle times by 0.2 s. “The continuing trend towards reduced wall thicknesses is being driven by economic concerns,” said Engel. “In the case of injection moulding machines used for continuous mass production, small weight reductions in specific products have a


www.injectionworld.com


IMAGE: NETSTAL


IMAGE: ARBURG


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60