excessive scrap rates, and inconsistent part spacing during assembly. The collected baseline data served
as a benchmark for evaluating the impact of automation and process improvements.
2. Injection Process Optimization
2.1 Tool and Die Preparation Once baseline data had been established, we transferred the customers’ existing tools and dies to MPI’s Technology Center. We began by cleaning and repairing the dies, as well as aligning them with MPI’s die-handling standards. The preparation of the dies was crucial to ensure that they would function
optimally in an automated
setup, with minimal variability during the injection process and no required operator tending.
2.2 Recipe Optimization
Utilizing the 20-20 data captured at the customers site, we replicated their injection recipe on our equipment. We then
adjusted the recipe parameters
to optimize the injection process and reduce scrap rates. Once a stable injection process was established, we automated the injection and trimming of patterns. This eliminated operator induced defects and increased total throughput.
3. Assembly Process Optimization
3.1 Assembly Automation Following the injection process optimization, we focused on automating the assembly process. Manual assembly operations are highly susceptible to variability in part spacing and layout, leading to inefficiencies and increased scrap both in and out of the waxroom. MPI’s flexible assembly system was introduced to automate pattern assembly. This system provides repeatability part to part and tree to tree, ensuring consistent part placement and reducing operator variation. The automated system was also designed to accommodate varying batch sizes and high part number
® Table 1: Injection Capacity and Scrap Reduction
Figure 1: Increase in Parts Produced per Hour and Reduction in Scrap Rate
Table 2: Assembly Efficiency and Labor Savings
changeover, allowing for more flexibility in production. Whether the customer requires high-volume or low-volume production runs, the system is able to
adjust the layout and spacing of parts to optimize efficiency without a robot programmer.
Continued on pg 26 February 2025 ❘ 25
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
