The Use of Variable Speed Drives to Retrofit Hydraulic Injection Molding Machines
Lawrence Ambs and Michael M. Frerker
Industrial Assessment Center
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
‘Amherst, MA 01003
ABSTRACT
Injection Molding is a common method of plastic
processing in which thermoplastic materials can be
‘molded into arbitrary complex shapes. Most injection
‘molding machines use complicated hydraulic systems
to perform the necessary work of the process,
Hydraulic system flow and pressure requirements vary
throughout the cycle and in many cases, excess fluid
that is not required by the process is throttled back to
the reservoir, wasting motor energy and producing
additional thermal load on the cooling system.
Variable speed drives can be used to allow injection
molding machine hydraulic systems to vary the
amount of fluid being pumped and thus reduce the
amount of fluid that is throttled, reducing the amount
of wasted energy. This paper discusses injection
molding machine processes and develops a protocol
for assessing the efficacy of variable speed drive
retrofits for hydraulic injection molding machines
BACKGROUND
The plastics processing industry is one of the
largest U.S. manufacturing sectors, representing more
than $150 billion in sales each year (5). Injection
molding is one of the most common methods of
plastics processing. According to Rosato and Rosato
(9) approximately 32% by weight of the plastics
processed in the U.S. are injection molded. There are
over 7800 plants” operating over 89,000 injection
‘molding machines (IMMs) in the US., representing a
connected electrical load of over 4200 MW (5).
‘The basic injection molding process is very
similar to the die casting process used for forming
‘metals. The raw material is fed into the machine,
usually in the form of small pellets. Its then raised to,
a temperature whereby it will flow, or plasticize, by a
combination of thermal energy input and mechanical
work. The plasticized material is then injected at high
pressure into a two part mold. The material is then
allowed to cool and solidify. Cooling is often the
longest portion of the process cycle. When the part has
solidified sufficiently, the mold halves open and the
partis ejected,
As a result of the fact that the plastic material
needs to be heated, forced into the mold at high
pressure, and then cooled, the injection molding
process is quite energy intensive. This situation is
‘exacerbated by the fact that IMMs currently in use are
only 10-25% efficient (9). In other words, a typical
IMM consumes 4-10 times more energy than is
theoretically required to melt and inject the plastic.
This figure doesn’t take into account the energy to
physically open and close the mold and some other
Recessary components of the cycle, however there is
clearly opportunity for efficiency improvements. Most
of this wasted energy ends up as a thermal load on the
plant chilled water or HVAC systems, further dri
up energy use. A study performed by Husky Injecti
‘Molding Systems, and published in Modern Plast
(12) shows that IMMs consume nearly 60% of the
energy at a typical injection molding plant. Chilled
water systems for mold and hydraulic system cooling
make up another 9%. As a result of all of the above,
IMMs are a good target for energy efficiency
improvements.
INJECTION MOLDING MACHINES
Injection molding machines (IMMs) canbe
conveniently described as two distinct units, a
clamping unit and a plasticizing or injection unit. The
clamping unit is responsible for opening and closing
the mold, and maintaining a force on the mold while
the material is being injected. The plasticizing unit is
responsible for, first melting the material so that it will
flow, and then injecting it at high pressure into the
‘mold, Most injection molding machines use energy in
the form of pressurized hydraulic fluid to power both
the plasticizing and clamping units.
Most IMMs use either a hydraulic ram or a
hydraulically actuated toggle system for the clamping
unit. There are advantages and disadvantages to each
type of clamping unit based on equipment cost, ease
of operation, speed, and maintainability. Toggle units
are typically more energy efficient than ram units,
however the energy used by the clamping unit is small
when compared to the energy used by the injection
unit
Al of the machines considered in this project
have reciprocating screw plasticizer units. This is the
most common type of plasticizer in use today. The
basic design of the reciprocating screw injection unit
is as follows. Inside the barrel is a screw. The screw
ccan be turned inside the barrel using a hydraulic
‘motor, and can be moved in and out of the barrel in a
reciprocating motion using one or more hydraulicrams, The turning motion of the serew along with
energy from the heater bands surrounding the barrel
melt the material. As the screw turns it is forced out of
the barrel slightly. When the required amount of
‘material is pre-plasticized, the material can be injected
into the mold through the reciprocating motion of the
screw. The findings of this project will be qualitatively
applicable to machines with other types of plasticizer
units, if differences in the relative lengths of each
portion of the cycle are taken into account.
INJECTION MOLDING CYCLE AND
HYDRAULIC DEMANDS
In this paper, the hydraulic system of the IMM is
defined as all pumps, motors, actuators, valves, piping,
ftc., used in conjunction with hydraulic fluid 10
provide useful energy to the IMM. The term fpudraulic
power pack refers to the system of pumps and motors,
along with the pressure control system that provide
high pressure hydraulic fluid. The system pressure is
determined based on the downstream restrictions in
the system, and is usually limited by a relief valve.
‘The hydraulic fluid pressure at the various actuators
can be significantly lower than the system pressure,
The term hydraulic requirements signifies the
hydraulic fluid pressure and flow rate that is needed
by the actuators. The hydraulic requirements of the
IMM vary throughout the injection molding cycle,
Typically parts of the process that involve bulk
‘motion, such as opening and closing the mold, require
large volumes of fluid. Parts of the process that
involve large forces, such as holding the mold closed
the plastic is being injected, require high
pressure fluid. The hydraulic requirements often differ
from what is supplied by the hydraulic power pack,
resulting in wasted energy,
The basic injection molding cycle can be
described in eight steps: mold close, clamp buildup,
injection high, injection low, screw recovery, idle,
mold open, and eject. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are
qualitative “representations of a typical injection
molding cycle. These plots are qualitative
representations of a typical injection molding cycle
Figures 1 and 2 are plots of the hydraulic fluid flow
rate and pressure requirements respectively. The
instantaneous hydraulic power is the product of the
pressure and flow rates, and is shown in Figure 3. As
can be seen, the hydraulic requirements in terms of
both pressure and flow rates vary substantially
throughout the cycle.
When the cycle is started, hydraulic fuid is
diverted to the clamping section, and the mold begins
to close. The hydraulic requirements are for a large
volume of relatively low pressure (200 psi) fluid,
When the mold halves meet, the system goes into
clamp buildup. During the rest of the cycle the
clamping unit will receive up to full hydraulic system
pressure (~3000 psi), but very little flow is required,
‘only enough to make up for leakage past seals.
‘The next portion of the eyele is injection high.
Daring this portion of the cycle the material is pushed
forward by the screw at high speed and high pressure.
This is accomplished by forcing the entite screw
forward in a reciprocating motion with a hydraulic
ram, To achieve the high injetion pressures required
(-20,000 psi) with the maximum hydraulic. system
Pressure (~3000 psi), the diameter of this hydraulic
zam is large. Thus the hydraulic requirements are for
high pressure fluid and large flow rates to move the
large diameter ram forward at a high velocity
Injection high typically places the highest.
instantaneous power requirements on the hydraulic
system since both high pressure fluid and high flow
rates are required. Although the instantaneous
hydraulic demands are large, the injection high portion
of the cycle is generally relatively shor in duration
Injection high causes the bulk movement of the
plastic material into the mold. The next portion of the
cycle is injection low, also called hold, As the plastic
in the mold begins to coo! it wll shrink. Injection low
maintains pressure on the material and_ forces
additional material into the mold to make up for any
shrinkage. During this portion of the cycle a small
volume of high pressure hydraulic fluid is required to
maintain injection pressure,
After the plastic in the gate solidifies the serew
recovery portion of the cycle begins. While the part is
still cooling in the mold, the serew begins to rotate
Preparing the next shot. The screw is driven by @
hydraulic motor. Producing high torque at high speed
requires a high hydraulic fuid pressure and flow rate
atthe motor, and as a result this portion of the eycle
typically places the second largest instantaneous
power requirement on the hydraulic system. However,
the duration of this portion of the eycle is considerably
longer than the injection high portion.
If the new shot is completely prepared, but the
part in the mold still requires more cooling time, there
will be an idle period in the cycle. The length of this
portion of the cycle is related to shot size, material
type, part design, a5 well as the capacity of the
machine on which the part is being molded. During
this portion of the cycle, hydraulic power
requirements are ata minimum,
After the part is completely cooled, the mold is
‘opened. This portion of the eyele is analogous to mold
closing, and requires a high volume of low pressure
fluid. Once the mold is opened, or in some cases as the
mold is opening, eject and core movement functions
may take placeINJECTION MOLDING MACHINE HYDRAULIC
SYSTEMS
‘AS can be seen in the description above, the
hydraulic requirements of the IMM vary substantially
throughout the cycle both in terms of required
pressure and flow rates. This makes it difficult to
design an energy efficient hydraulic power pack for
the injection molding process.
‘The most simple hydraulic system uses a constant
speed motor, driving a constant displacement pump,
and with a simple mechanical relief valve. This will be
referred to as a constant flow rate, constant pressure
hydraulic power pack since it will output fluid at a
constant flow rate and at a relatively constant pressure
regardless of the cycle requirements. Since
instantaneous power is the product of pressure and
flow rate, @ constant pressure, constant flow rate
system will have @ constant power draw, even if the
cycle hydraulic requirements vary. The power pack
must be designed for the maximum pressure and flow
requirements of the cycle if the IMM is to function
properly. At other points in the cycle there will be
‘waste in one of two forms. Bither excess fluid will be
bypassed over the relief valve, or high pressure fluid
will be throttled to a lower pressure before it reaches
the actuators.
As energy costs have increased, a number of
different methods have been used to address IMM
inefficiencies. Some of the efficiency improvements
that are in use include the use of: — hydraulic
accumulators, relief valves that allow system pressure
to modulate to the eycle requirements, multiple staged
pumps that allow large displacement pumps to be
diverted at low pressure when not required, variable
isplacement pumps, and variable speed drives.
(VSDs). Often a single machine will incorporate more
than one of these improvements,
‘The use of variable speed drives on new IMMs is
still somewhat rare. However, itis quite common for
new IMMSs to have variable displacement pumps and
pressure modulation. These new IMMs show a
significant efficiency improvement over IMs just a
few years older that use constant volume hydraulic
power packs with pressure modulation. Even greater
savings is shown when the new IMMs are compared
to even older IMMs with constant volume, constant
pressure hydraulic power packs. According to the
Electric Power Research Institute (2), a 1993 vintage
IMM with staged variable displacement pumps uses
20% less energy than an [MM manufactured in the
early 1980's, and up to 60% less energy than an IMM
built before 1975.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of VSDs, over
some of these other solutions, is that they can be easily
retrofit on existing machines with constant speed AC
luction motors. The VSDs allow old machines to
rease their efficiency to the point of matching or
even exceeding the efficiency of new machines.
VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES AS A RETROFIT
The VSD is primarily suited for controlling the
volume output of the pump. Using the VSD, the
bypass of fluid over the relief valve can be minimized
since the volume output of the pump can closely
follow the requirements of the cycle. The VSD is
programmed s0 that for each portion of the cycle, only
the required flow is pumped, and therefore to
maximize savings, the VSD controls must be
optimized for each mold individually.
‘The VSD retrofit requires only rerouting the
power supply of the hydraulic pump motor(s) through
the'VSD and setting up the VSD control system, either
through the IMM’s central controller or through an
independent controller. Installation can usually be
completed in less than one shift. By comparison,
retrofiting an IMM with a variable displacement
ump would require substantial hydraulic system
redesign, and could cost as much as 60% of the price
of anew machine
‘The goal of the VSD control system is to allow
the VSD to set the motor speed depending. on what
portion of the cycle is currently occurring. For each
portion of the cycle there will be a motor speed set
Point. The motor speed set points will potentially vary
different materials and with different molds.
After the VSD is installed, any flow restriction
valves in the hydraulic system need to be opened s0
that savings are maximized, and the system needs to
be optimized, A common method of motor speed set
point optimization is to simply tum down the motor
speed until the cycle time starts to increase, and then
tum it back up slightly. While this method makes
intuitive sense, it is not clear whether itis the optimal
‘way to set up these systems.
SAVINGS
‘The decision to install VSDs on IMMs, like most
energy conservation decisions, is based primarily on
economic factors. Specifically, will the savings
Provided by the technology provide a sufficient return
fon the investment required for the installation,
Typically the cost of implementation can be easily
determined from VSD distributors. Determining the
savings in energy is much more difficult. The affinity
laws that are used to predict VSD savings for
centrifugal pump or fan applications are not sufficient
for the more complicated IMM hydraulic pump
applications, and will over estimate savings.
‘There are some basic rules of thumb concerning
SDs and IMMS that are typically applied. Most VSDinstallers expect energy savings of 20-50% of pre-
retrofit motor energy use for machines with constant
lacement pumps. Machines with variable
displacement pumps will have lower savings, and only
@ few VSD distributors consider machines with
variable displacement pumps appropriate for VSD
retrofits. However, it is generally felt that potential
energy savings is more strongly dependent on cycle
time breakdown, especially percentage idle time in the
cycle, than on machine parameters or other process
parameters
PREVIOUS IMM ENERGY USE STUDIES
‘A number of previous studies have examined the
energy use of IMMs, and the savings achieved
through VSD retrofits. Farrell, Beumont, and Koch,
G) present an experimental’ energy audit of an
injection molding process. They treat the process itself
asa black box, but study the energy inputs and energy
losses ofthe process. Michaeli and Robers (6) attempt
comparison of hydraulic IMMs with all-electric
IMMs in terms of process repeatability and energy
efficiency. They also examine where losses occur
within the IMM_ hydraulic system through local
metering of hydraulic fluid, Goodman (5) and
‘Thomburg (11) both report on a VSD retrofit to a
specific 450 ton IMM. Savings are measured for
several different processes on this machine. Poole and
Lawrence (7) present the results of seven VSD
installations on large machines at one plant.
Several other studies have attempted to predict the
savings that VSDs can achieve through an analysis of
existing installations. Each of these studies used
savings data ffom existing installations anda
regression analysis with various machine and process
Parameters. Remley (8) presents a simple model that
attempts to create a savings model for a range of
machines using data from, eight VSD installations at
four sites. Englander and Remley (1) expand upon the
previous study with a more complicated model and
more data points, Silver (10) continued where the
Previous study Ieft off, examining five new
installations, bringing the total to seventeen
installations. Each of the models developed in these
studies are troubled by the small size of the data set
used. While all of the models do a relatively good job
of fitting their own data set, they are considerably
Poorer at predicting savings on other installations. iis
also clear that some of the parameters in these models
do not have a theoretical basis, Thus it is not clear
Whether these represent important parameters that
effect savings, or simply allow the curve to fit this
particular dataset.
ANALYSIS OF VSD INSTALLATIONS
General Approach
‘The data used in this analysis came from
essentially four types of sources: published reports and.
other metering data from utilities; metering data from
consulting firms that work with utilities and their
customers; manufacturers who have installed VSDs on
their IMMs; and VSD distributors. The original study
(4) upon which this paper is based considered 49 IMM
VSD retrofits.
While quantitative information about energy use
is useful, and ultimately necessary to determine
itis not sufficient to develop a model of the
process. The fundamental difficulty with the sources
of quantitative data, is that they reported insufficient
information about process and machine parameters to
develop a savings model. Other sources were able to
supply qualitative data regarding the process and
‘machine parameters, but not energy use
‘measurements.
The net result of this situation is that the data that
was collected is not sufficient to produce a
comprehensive mathematical model. However, the
available quantitative data helps to estimate the range
of possible values for both pre-retrofit energy use and
percent savings. The qualitative data then allows some
general statements to be made about what types of
processes will be in the upper portion of that range of
savings, and what processes will be in the lower
Portion. Based on this information, some guidelines
regarding the process specific efficacy of VSDs on
IMMS have been developed
Quantitative Results
‘The quantitative data collected includes the
average initial motor power draw in kW and the
average final motor power draw in kW. Based on this
information, the percent savings due to the VSD
retrofit is calculated. Note that all values for energy
use are for the IMM motors only. No before and after
retrofit electricity metering data for the entire IMM,
including heater bands, was available. Potentially,
‘modifications to the hydraulic system could effect the
energy use of the heater bands,
‘The range of values in motor load and percent
savings is remarkable, as is the lack of correlation
between these values and any other reported
information. Pre-retrofit motor load ranged from @
high of 132% to a low of 32%, although for most
applications (42 out of 49) the range was 32-80%
Post-retrofit motor load ranged from a high of 122%
to a low of 13%, although for most applications (38
ut of 49), it fell within a range of 20-50%. Percent
savings ranged from a low of 4% to a high of 62%,although for most applications (38 out of 49), it fell
‘within a range of 20-50%,
There was no strong correlation between percent
savings and machine size in tons, number or size of
motors, before or after load on the motor, or the
material being molded. For the applications for which
information about idle time existed, there was a
‘correlation between idle time and percent savings,
In order to examine the range of simple payback
periods some assumptions are made. An equation
developed by Silver (10), is used to estimate the cost
of implementation. It is assumed that all of the
machines are in three shift production for 6000
hhours/year. Installation of a VSD on an IMM will
provide a savings in both electrical energy and
‘demand charges. The reason is that the typical cycle
time of an IMM is much shorter than the typical
demand averaging period of 15 minutes. Thus an
average electricity rate, including a demand
contribution, of $0.10/kWh is assumed. Based on
these assumptions the average simple payback period
for the applications reported is 2.8 years. The shortest
payback is 1.0 year, and the longest is 9.7 years. Most
of the simple payback periods are in a range of 1-4
vyears
Qualitative Results
‘The qualitative information was collected at a
single manufacturing site that has multiple
installations of VSDs on IMMs. In an effort to
determine the relative affects of machine and process
parameters, information was collected about specific
‘molds on several machines, as well as about specific
machines with several different molds. For each
process the machine parameters of machine
manufacturer, maximum clamping force in tons, date
of manufacture, clamp type, and number and size of
motors is reported. In” addition the process
characteristics of material type, shot size, injection
pressure and back pressure are reported. The key to
this analysis however, is the fact that the VSD speed
setting for each portion of the cycle is also available.
Since motor power varies atleast linearly with the
motor speed, the motor speed settings can be used to
assess the relative savings during each portion of the
cycle. The settings for different processes can then be
compared, While this information allows conclusions
Table 1. VSD Settings by Portion of Cycle.
about the relative savings in a certain portion of the
cycle, it does not give explicit information about the
relative savings over the entire cycle. This is a result
of the fact that the system pressure at each point in the
cycle is unknown,
For the VSDs investigated at the manufacturer's
site, the average motor speed set points for each
portion of the cycle are shown in Table 1. The motor
speed is given as a percentage of full speed. The mean,
high, and low motor speed settings are reported for
each portion of the cycle. VSD optimization was
previously performed by plant personnel. The basic
optimization methodology was to turn down the motor
speed for each portion of the cycle as much as possible
without increasing cycle time. A lower limit of 42% of.
rated speed was used to insure good motor cooling and
hydraulic system performance. Several newer IMMs
have VSDs that are integrated the system
controller. For these machines, optimization was done
by the controller, and motor speeds lower than 42% of
rated speed were recorded.
‘The significant range in values during each
portion of the cycle was problematic in terms of
‘making generalizations, however, the average results
are as expected. The portions of the cycle during
which hydraulic fluid flow requirements are lowest,
idle and injection low, show the greatest reduction in
‘motor speed. Parts of the process that require high
hydraulic fluid flow rates show less reduction in motor
speed.
All other things being equal, machines with two
motors tend to have more potential for savings than
‘machines with one motor. The reason is that when one
motor is used, relatively high motor speed set points
are required during five portions of the cycle, mold
‘open and close, injection high, screw recovery and
core pull. The two motor machines in this study, were
all designed so that each motor has separate duties.
One motor serves the injection unit, and requires a
high motor speed setting during injection high and
serew recovery but is also used during mold open and
close. The other motor serves the clamping unit, and
only needs high speeds during mold open, mold close,
and core pull. At all other times the clamping unit
‘motor is essentially idle, and can be tumed down. The
values for injection high and screw recovery are
therefore somewhat artificially low in Table 1,
Tajection | Tnjeation Screw Wold
_ Close Mold | High Low Revovery | tale | Open | Core Pull
Average 76 6 5) 7 2 35 7
Maximum 36 100) 8 “Tor 38 100) 100
Minimum 30 2 35 a 25 a a2because they include settings for the second motors
which are essentially idle during these two portions of
the cycle When the second motor speed settings are
removed from the average, the injection high average
speed setting is 74% of rated motor speed, and the
screw recovery average speed setting is 76% of rated
‘motor speed
‘An attempt was made to correlate motor speed
settings during injection high and screw recovery with
the type of material being molded. The large range in
values, and the low number of data points for each
‘material prevent any trend from being discemed
during screw recovery. The correlation between motor
speed setting and ciamp type was also weak. This
qualitative analysis of motor speed settings is useful,
however some difficulties should be pointed out. AS
with other studies presented, a relatively low number
of VSD applications were investigated. Along with
large variations in motor settings between similar
applications makes it difficult to make definitive
statements, In addition, the findings are dependent on
the method and skill with which the VSD was
optimized,
‘A PROTOCOL FOR ASSESSING THE EFFICACY
OF A VSD RETROFIT
It was not possible to use the findings of this
study to develop a simple mathematical model for use
in predicting savings. However, it is possible to
develop a protocol that can be used to determine
which injection molding processes should be
considered for further study. The protocol which
follows is based on the qualitative and quantitative
analyses of this study along with the information
presented in the previous sections. There are three
steps to the protocol, collection of data, determination
of pre-retrofit motor energy use, and determination of
the percentage reduction in motor energy use that the
‘VSD can provide.
Data Collection
In general, the more information that can be
collected about both the process and the IMM, the
better. At a minimum, three pieces of information are
required to make a prediction of VSD savings, the
number and size of hydraulic pump electric motors,
the cycle time breakdown of the process, and whether
‘or not variable displacement hydraulic pumps are
used. Table 2 outlines these and some additional
machine and process information that is useful, in
order of importance, and how it can be collected.
Most of the information outlined above can be
easily collected during a quick audit of an injection
molding process. Determining whether an IMM uses
variable ot fixed displacement pumps by simply
examining the pumps can be difficult. Pump
information is more easily collected from the IMM
‘manuals or prints, or from the IMM manufacturer. If it
is not possible to determine the pump type in any
‘manner, assume that IMMs manufactured before 1985
use fixed displacement pumps,
Perhaps the most important piece of information
used to determine VSD savings, is the breakdown of
the total cycle time into the seven portions of the cyele
Previously described. It is possible to determine the
eycle breakdown for almost all injection molding
processes though visual observation with the use of a
stopwatch, and no investigation of an injection
‘molding process is complete without this information
Table 2, Information to Collect During an Audit of an Injection Molding Process.
Information | Method of Collection
Cycle Time Breakdown | Collect using a stopwatch,
Number and Size (hp) of Hydraulic Pump Motors | Collect from motor nameplate(s), or IMM hydraulic system prints
Number and Type of Hydraulic Pumps | Collet from IMM hydraulic system prints/manvals
Type of Hydraulic System Pressure Control | Collect from IMM hydraulic system manuals.
i Type (Togele or Ram) | Collect by direct observation of IMM,
Clamping Force
Tons | Collect from IMM nameplate or manuals
Date of IMM Manufacture | Collet from IMM nameplate or manuals.
Paste Material | Collect by observation or from mold setup sheets
Injection Pressure [ Collect from mold setup sheets, or during IMM eyele
IMM Shot Capacity | Collect from IMM namepiate or manual.
‘Shot Size | Weight of the par, oF from mold setup sheet.Determination of Pre-Retrofit Motor Energy Use
Using just the above information it will be
possible to make a rough prediction of the energy
savings that a VSD can provide. However, the
prediction will be improved upon if it is possible to
acquire measurements of the pre-retrofit hydraulic
pump motor energy use, either on an average or
instantaneous basis. If tis not possible to measure the
existing motor load in any way, it will be necessary to
‘make an estimate of motor load, however this will be
‘considerably less accurate than taking measurements
‘As desctibed above, the motor electrical power draw
is typically between 30-80% of rated motor power.
‘The estimation scheme proposed is to develop a
‘motor factor percentage, MFP, based on machine and
Process parameters. This MFP when multiplied by the
motor rated power in kW will provide an estimate of
the pre-retrofit average motor power draw in kW. As a
rule of thumb, start with an estimate of MFP of 55%
of rated motor power. If the IMM is built before
1980, add 10%. If itis built after 1985, deduct 10%. If
the IMM uses multiple motors deduct 10%. If the
IMM uses variable displacement pumps deduct 20%.
Next add the times for the idle and injection low
portions of the cycle, and divide by the total cycle
{ime to get a low flow rate factor, LFF, forthe process.
Then add or deduct from the MFP based on the
following equation:
MFP =MFPgyprorat - 0.5 x (LFF - 0.40),
‘A maximum MEP of 80%, and a minimum of 30%
should be used for IMMs with constant displacement
pumps. Slightly lower values may be likely for IMMs
with variable displacement pumps, although no
machines with variable displacement pumps were
‘examined to confirm this thought.
Table 3 is a summary of four methods that can be
used to determine the pre-retrofit hydraulic pump
‘motor(s) energy use. They are presented in a
decreasing order of accuracy/usefulness.
Determination of VSD Energy Savings
In most cases an average pre-retrofit motor power
(kW) will be determined. The next step is estimating
the percent savings due to the VSD installation,
All of the IMMSs investigated in this project used
constant displacement hydraulic pumps. If an IMM
uses variable displacement pumps, it should be
assumed that the savings due to a VSD installation
will be less than 20% of pre-retrofit motor energy use,
unless other operating conditions are extreme,
‘The VSD industry rule of thumb of 20-50%
savings over pre-retrofit motor energy use for IMMs
with constant displacement pumps, is supported by the
quantitative results reported, The qualitative results
show that the motor speed can be lowered the most
e =o)
B
i
“Figure 3. Required Hydraulic Energy
(Pressuce x Flow Rate)
Through One CycleBIBLIOGRAPHY
1.) Englander, Scott L., and Remley, Carl H. (1994)
“Measured performance of variable speed
Arives on injection molding machinery,”
Proceedings: ACEEE 1994 Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
Washington, D.C., pp. 2.87-2.94.
2.) EPRI. (1993) Partnership for Industrial
‘Competitiveness, Plastics Fabrication, Industry
‘Manual. Electric Power Research Institue,
Palo Alto, California
3.) Farrell, RE,, Beumnont, 1P., and Koch, P.B.
(1991) “Performing an energy audit on an
injection molding process.” ANTEC
Conference Proceedings, Montreal, Society of
Plastics Engineers, Brookfield, Connecticut,
pp. 504-507.
4.) Fretker, Michael M., (1996) “The Use of
Variable Speed Drives as a Retrofit for
Injection Molding Machine Hydraulic
Systems.” Masters Project, Department of
‘Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts.
5.) Goodman, Wendell G. (1992) Upgrading
Injection Molding Machines for Improved
Efficiency (CMF 92-6). Electric Power
Research Institute, Center for Materials
Fabrication, Columbus, Ohio.
6.) Michaeli, W., and Robers, Th. (1993) “Energy
consumption and reproducibility of all-electric
injection molding machines compared with
hydraulic machines.” ANTEC Conference
Proceedings, New Orleans, Society of Plastics
Engineers, Brookfield, Connecticut, pp. 2809-
2817
10
7.) Poole, J, and Lawrence, R. (1995) Evaluation of
‘Adjustable Speed Drive Systems for Injection
‘Mold Machines (EPRI-TR-105149). Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
Califor
8.) Remley, Carl H. (1993) “Measured performance
of variable speed drives on injection molding
hydraulic pumps.” Energy Management
Consulting and Equipment, Inc., North
Attleboro, Massachusets
9.) Rosato, Donald V., and Rosato, Dominick V.
(1995) Injection Molding Handbook, 2nd
Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.
10, Silver, Scott. (1994) “PG&E Measure
Documentation-ASDs for Injection Molding.
Savage Engineering, Inc, Bloomfield,
Connecticut.
11.) Thomburg, TC. (1993) “The rejuvenation of an
‘old injection molding workhorse to an energy
efficient thoroughbred.” ANTEC Conference
Proceedings, New Orleans, Society of Plastics
Engineers, Brookfield, Connecticut, pp. 2818-
2824,
12,) Wilder, Robert V. (1992) “Want to cut energy
costs? Start with the press.” Modern Plastic,
69 (3), April 1992, pp. 80-81.