Received: 6 September 2020 Revised: 1 December 2020 Accepted: 5 December 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pen.25618

REVIEW ARTICLE

A review of liquid silicone rubber injection molding:

Process variables and process modeling

Matthew Bont | Carol Barry | Stephen Johnston

Plastics Engineering Department,

University of Massachusetts Lowell,
Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence
Stephen Johnston, Plastics Engineering
Department, University of Massachusetts
Lowell, One University Ave. Lowell, MA
01854, USA.
Email: stephen_johnston@uml.edu
Abstract
Liquid silicone rubber (LSR) is an elastomer molded into critical performance
components for applications in medical, power, consumer, automotive, and
aerospace applications. This article reviews process behavior, material model-
ing, and simulation of the (LSR) injection molding process. Each phase of the
LSR injection molding process is discussed, including resin handling,
plastication, injection, pack and hold, and curing; and factors affecting the
molding process are reviewed. Processing behavior of LSR is marked by tran-
sient interactions between curing, shear rate, temperature, pressure, and
tooling. Therefore, current LSR models for curing, viscosity, pressure, and tem-
perature are discussed. Process dynamics and material modeling are combined
in LSR injection molding simulations with applications in mold design, trou-
bleshooting process-induced defects, and management of shear stress and non-
uniform temperatures between LSR and substrates during overmolding.
Finally, case studies using commercial simulation software are presented,
which have shown cavity pressure and flow front advancement within 3% of
experimental values. Optimization of LSR materials, data collection, model
fitting, venting, and bonding remain areas of continued interest.

KEYWORDS
curing, injection molding, liquid silicone rubber, modeling, overmolding, processing, silicone,
simulation, thermoset

1 | INTRODUCTION formulated for food[7] and medical[8] applications typi-

Liquid silicone rubber (LSR) is a thermoset elastomer
that exhibits relatively high elongation, consistent high-
temperature performance, low sensitivity to ultraviolet
(UV) radiation,[1] and favorable biocompatibility.[2] It is
available in a wide range of hardnesses (durometer).
Commercial grades of LSR show elongations of less than
200% to greater than 1200%. The use temperatures for
LSR materials range from below −40
C to above 200
C,
depending on the exposure durations.[3–5] Chemical
reactions on the surface of LSR parts reduce the impact
of UV radiation over time.[6] Silicone materials
cally have relatively low volatile and leachable content.
Silicone materials have been reported to cause a less sig-
nificant foreign body response compared to many other
soft implantable polymers.[8] LSR materials represent a
broad range of properties and processing methods. The
polymer varies in the side group content, catalyst and
inhibitor type and concentration, filler content, and low
molecular weight species.[3,9] Formulation changes,
such as crosslink density, silica loading, and side
groups,[10] allow for LSR grades with Shore A hardness
values of 1–90,[11,12] but the majority of commercial LSR
materials are between 20 and 70 Shore A hardness. Most

Polym Eng Sci. 2021;61:331–347. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pen © 2021 Society of Plastics Engineers 331
332
commercial LSR materials are categorized by
durometer.
Due to its favorable biocompatibility ratings, silicone
is commonly used for implantable, skin contact, and
hypoallergenic applications, including seals, catheters,
membranes, lenses, controlled drug release, wire strain
reliefs, respiratory masks, and encapsulation of electronic
medical devices.[3,11,13,14] The relatively wide range of
durometer, hypoallergenic behavior, and temperature
resistance leads to use in consumer goods such as elec-
tronic wearable devices and food contact products like
utensils and baby bottle nipples.[11,15] In power applica-
tions, LSR materials exhibit dielectric strength compara-
ble with many other elastomers,[3,16] relatively high use
temperature, and relatively low UV impact. Reported
applications include electrical insulators and transformer
components.[3,11,15,17,18] Automotive and aerospace appli-
cations, like key pads, seals, gaskets, and vibrational
damping components.[3,11,15] These applications also
employ the relatively wide working temperature range,
low UV sensitivity of LSR,[17] and fire resistance demon-
strated by meeting fire ratings, that is, UL 94 V-0 and
V-1, and so forth.[19]
LSR is an innovative polymer that supports high
quantity precision injection molded products. LSR resin
usage was reported as $3.2 billion in 2017[20] and is pro-
jected to grow at a rate of 4.5%–8% per year until
2026.[20,21] Ever increasing demand and product perfor-
mance requirements drive a need for the application of
engineering tools such as modeling and simulation to
develop and optimize the commercial LSR injection
molding process. Some commercial injection molding
simulations support LSR modeling within a thermoset
option, which consider cure behavior.[22–25] This requires
understanding both LSR material and molding behavior.
However, the relevant literature that focuses on the LSR
CH3 CH3 CH3 CH3
Si O Si O Si O Si O CH2
CH3 CH3 H CH3
n y
(A) (B)
CH3 C6H5 CH3 CH3
Si O Si O Si O Si
CH3 C6H5 CH3 CH3
m m
(D)
BONT ET AL.
injection molding process variables and process modeling
is scattered. Reviews of LSR[2,9,26] have previously
focused on materials, chemistry, properties, and applica-
tions. This review focuses on understanding the variables
that impact the LSR injection molding process as well as
what work has been done to model or simulate the LSR
injection molding process.
2 | MATERIALS
LSR materials are typically based on a pol-
ydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) structure with a silicon-
oxygen backbone and methyl side groups (Figure 1(A)).
These silicones are copolymers with siloxanes containing
hydride side groups (Figure 1(B)) and/or vinyl side and
end groups (Figure 1(C)). Methyl groups have relatively
low intermolecular interactions, which lower the resis-
tance to deformation and chain motion[27,28] and contrib-
ute to the flexibility exhibited by most LSR materials.
Vinyl and hydroxyl groups provide sites for crosslinking,
which tends to increase hardness.[10] Formulations may
include other side groups such as phenyl[29] or
trifluoropropyl[30] groups to change the perfor-
mance[10,31,32] (Figure 1(D,E)) Phenyl groups increase the
refractive index, increase the low-temperature stability,
and reduce moisture permeability.[3,19,33] Trifluoropropyl
groups increase hydrocarbon solvent resistance.[3,19,33]
Clarson and Semlyen,[27] and Grigoras and Lane[34] dis-
cuss the effects of side group interactions in greater
detail.
Commercial grades of LSR are the focus of this work
and are typically sold as a two-part kit. Both parts contain
the base polymer and silica filler. The part A carries the
catalyst and part B carries the crosslinker and catalyst
inhibitor.[3,10] Silicone materials have a wide range of
CH3 CH3 CH3
CH Si O Si O CH CH2
CH3 CH3 CH3
x
(C)
CF3
CH2
F I G U R E 1 Silicones: (A) basic
CH2 CH3 polydimethylsiloxane polymer unit,
O Si O Si O (B) polydimethyl methylhydrogen
siloxane, (C) polydimethyl methylvinyl
CH3 CH3
siloxane, and siloxanes with
(D) diphenyl and (F) trifluoropropyl
(E) units
BONT ET AL.
formulations. Most commercial LSR materials are PDMS-
based materials with variations in methyl, vinyl, and
hydroxyl group concentrations, chain length distribu-
tions, ratios of functional groups, and silica filler load-
ing.[3,10,31] The structure, component ratios, and additives
of commercial-grade LSR materials are not typically pub-
lic knowledge.
Most commercial LSRs employ platinum cata-
lysts.[11,12,14,17,35] Addition cure crosslinking is generally
driven by the platinum-based catalyst. The catalyst breaks
the double bond of the vinyl group and then bonds to a
hydride of another chain (Figure 2(A)). The reaction is
accelerated by heat. The methyl groups crosslink less read-
ily than the vinyl groups, providing some control of the
crosslink density.[15,36] Crosslinking can occur at the end
of chains or at random functional side groups within the
chains (Figure 2(B)). This crosslinking creates complex
network structures that have crosslink densities and struc-
tures based on the concentration and distribution of
methyl, vinyl, and hydride groups.[9]
The platinum catalyst levels have been reported to
start low as 1 part per million[37] and increasing toward
200 parts per million.[37] A number of commercial grades
have been shown to have 10–15 parts per million of plati-
num catalyst.[10,38] At typical cure temperatures of
140–200
C, this loading results in production cure times
ranging between approximately 0.5 and 7 s per millimeter
of part thickness.[17]
The molar mass of the base silicone polymer ranges
between 30,000 and 100,000 grams per mole.[10,39] After
(Base Polymer)
P* + H C H
(Crosslinker)
F I G U R E 2 (A) Basic silicone
crosslinking reaction, where Pt* is the
platinum catalyst and (B) random
crosslinking structure
333
crosslinking, a LSR with a Shore A hardness of 30 was
shown to have an average molar mass between crosslinks
of 35,000 and 45,000 grams per mole.[10]
The crosslinker, also referred to as a curing agent,[37]
is a short-chain polyorganosilioxane that is soluble in the
base silicone polymer. Analysis of a few commercial LSR
grades showed that the crosslinker molar mass ranged
from 1900 to 7700 g per mole.[10] The short-chain
crosslinker ultimately crosslinks the hydride group to the
vinyl groups with the aid of the catalyst.[9] Commercial
LSR formulations report controlling ratios of silicon-
bonded hydrogen atoms in the crosslinker to silicon-
bonded vinyl groups in the base resin, resulting in
crosslinker loadings of about 1.2 wt%. The type and load-
ing of crosslinker vary across different LSR grades.[37]
Inhibitors prevent premature curing and are standard
in commercial LSR kits. The inhibitors block the catalyst
and slow the reaction. As the LSR heats up in the cavity
during curing, the inhibitor is volatilized and the reaction
accelerates. These inhibitors are typically short polymer
chains with functional end groups, such as ethynyl
cyclohexanol with a molar mass ranging between 1900
and 7700 g/mol.[10] Inhibitors may also include acetylenic
alcohols, hydroperoxides, alkenyl-containing maleates,
and/or alkenyl isocyanurates.[37,38] Inhibitor loading has
been reported as 10–500 moles per mole of catalyst.[40]
The physical properties of LSR materials are a func-
tion of the polymer structure and additives. Commercial
grades generally contain 20–30 wt% silica filler.[10,35] Sil-
ica loading contributes to the cured LSR reaching 20–35
R R
R Si O Si O R R
R
C H R n R Si O Si O R
R n
H C H
+ H C H R H
H R H R Si O Si O Si R
R Si O Si O Si R R R n R
R R n R
(A)
Chain
Crosslink
(B)
334
Shore A durometer. Silica filler with functional surface
chemistry changes the reversibility of the chain
motion.[10,41] The surface-modified silica act to link
chains together resisting chain motion and increasing the
stiffness.[42] As elongation reaches a critical point, the
modulus increases as chain motion becomes restricted by
entanglements and crosslinks.[5] Both bonding and inter-
molecular forces were reported between chains and silica
fillers. Bonding occurs between silanol on the silica sur-
face and the silicone chain backbone.[43] Alternatively,
some silica filler surfaces interact with the chains
through Van der Waals forces. In these instances, the
attraction allows chains to pass by attraction sites and
disentangle. The disconnected chains then reattach at the
filler surface, resulting in a decrease in entanglement
density. These changes in the network conformation are
effectively permanent since the return energy is insuffi-
cient to reverse the disentanglement of the network
chains.[44]
The strength of silicone materials is strain rate depen-
dent[45] and based on the network makeup.[46] Increasing
the cross-linking ratios through manipulation of the side
groups is required to reach elevated durometer ranges.[10]
Decreasing the crosslink density results in a decrease in
the modulus.[47,48] The modulus, elongation, and hard-
ness increase with increasing crosslink density.[10,41]
Irregularities in the structure after crosslinking cause
deviations in the physical behavior.[49] Trapped chains
cause an increase in stress when subjected to strain. Dis-
entanglement of free chain ends cause a plateau in the
stress followed by an increase in stress at the end of free
motion.[50,51] Silicone materials exhibit the Mullins effect,
that is, a permanent stress-softening due to chains rear-
ranging and settling during the initial strain cycles.[52]
Stress softening was not reported as significant in unfilled
silicone.[44] The magnitude and direction of the strain
rearranges the chains against the fillers, causing irrevers-
ible particle slippage and filler particle movement. The
entanglement density is reduced in the strain direction.
The softening effect on uniaxial stretching is anisotropic
and has a limited impact on other directions.[53]
The viscosity ranges from near 10 Pa s to above
2000 Pa s, depending on the temperature, degree of cur-
ing, shear rate, and grade.[12,54] As the molecular weight
increases, the viscosity increases as longer chains cause
increased entanglements. These entanglements are exac-
erbated by silica filler interactions.[55,56] Silica filler
increases strength and viscosity, but surface modification
of the silica can be used to minimize some filler-filler
interactions to reduce viscosity.[57] The viscosity behavior
has been shown to be relatively consistent between the A
and B components of a LSR kit[10,58]; however, some LSR
manufacturers report a difference between parts A and B
BONT ET AL.
that differ from grade to grade.[54] The viscosity and melt
flow index is not commonly used to describe LSR.
3 | PROCESSING
In liquid injection molding (LIM), the LSR is fed to the
relatively cool barrel of an injection molding machine
and forced into a heated mold where it is cured. Molds
employ hot and cold runner systems. In hot runner sys-
tems the entire runner cures and is removed with the
part, whereas a cold runner system keeps the LSR mate-
rial chilled to prevent curing of the runner. In the latter
configuration, the part does not have runner waste.
3.1 | Resin handling
As illustrated in Figure 3, LSR typically is fed to an injec-
tion molding machine by pumping LSR parts A and B
and any additives, such as color, from a bucket or drum,
through a static mixer, and into the feed port of the bar-
rel. Pneumatic or servo-driven pistons push a wiper plate
into the component buckets. The displacement forces the
LSR and additives into the leader lines feeding into the
static mixer in production LSR molding. Some systems
incorporate flow measurement, bucket position, and
pressure regulators to improve stability and increased
accuracy.[59]
The mixing ratio for parts A and B is often allowed to
vary up to 5% off ratio for a 1:1 ratio LSR without signifi-
cantly impacting the process or final product proper-
ties.[60] Color typically is pumped through a third stream
feeder line to the static mixer at a concentration ranging
between 0.3 and 6.0 wt%.[17,61,62] Some commercial prod-
ucts are using additives at levels well above 5 wt%.[63]
The literature is limited with respect to static mixers
and other production mixing methods. Lopez et al.[64]
reported using static mixers with as few as 13 elements,
but more elements have been recommended for general
use. LSR experiences some additional mixing during
screw recovery. Static mixers with 20 elements were
suggested for LSR pumped into an injection machine that
utilizes a screw compared to mixers with 32 elements
that were recommended for plunger injection
machines.[60] Mixing elements have been reported using
flow division or alternatively radial mixing.[65] When the
mixed LSR exiting the static mixer enters the feed port of
the injection barrel, the pressure target at the feed port is
about 0.55 MPa.[60]
Small batches may be processed by pumping a pre-
mixed LSR directly into the feed port. The premix batch
typically is prepared by weighing out the components
BONT ET AL.
F I G U R E 3 Diagram of liquid LSR Pump
silicone rubber (LSR) two bucket pump
system, barrel, screw, and mold
Part A Part B
Additive / Color
and then combining them using either physical hand
mixing or utilizing some auxiliary mixing apparatus.
Degassing may be required to remove or reduce air intro-
duced during the handling and mixing process using
methods such as vacuum or centrifuging. The material is
loaded into a cartridge or piston and pumped into the
feed port. Premixed LSR may be chilled to prolong pot
life because reducing the temperature reduces the cure
rate. The mixed LSR then is pumped directly into the bar-
rel. Premixed pressure pot systems are typically driven by
compressed air.[66]
Recently, a one-part base LSR has been released for
commercial use. The inhibitor and catalyst are custom
loaded and introduced in-line with specialized feeder
equipment.[67] It has been reported that this system
allows the optimization of the cure speed and tempera-
ture by varying the catalyst and inhibitor loading at the
injection molding machine.[67]
3.2 | Plastication
The uncured LSR mixture is fed as a low viscosity liquid
into the barrel of reciprocating screw injection unit or a
plunger injection unit. During plastication, the tempera-
ture of the LSR is controlled and shots of material are
created for injection into the mold. The LSR should not
start curing until it reaches the mold. Limited research
has been published on the design of the barrel, screw,
and plunger, and the plastication parameters of barrel
temperature, screw speed, backpressure, and decompres-
sion when injection molding LSR.
With reciprocating screw injection units, the low LSR
viscosity requires a relatively tight gap (0.02 mm)
between the barrel and screw bushing to prevent leak-
age.[61] As with most thermosets, the screws are shorter
than those used for thermoplastics. The screw length-to-
diameter ratio (L/D) has ranged from 14:1[61] to 16.6:1[63]
and an L/D ratio of 12:1 to 15:1 has been recommended
for LSR applications.[60] Mixing occurs before the barrel
so that greater L/D ratios are not required to homogenize
335
Static Mixer
Nozzle Mold
Barrel Screw LSR Part
Heaters
components and additives. Shear heating needs to be
minimized within the barrel due to the thermoset nature
of LSR, but this is facilitated by the relatively low viscos-
ity of the material. Reported compression ratio are close
to 1:1.[60,61,68] A nonreturn valve at the screw tip prevents
flow of the LSR charge back down the screw during
injection.[61,62]
In plunger injection units a screw feeds mixed LSR
into the plunger chamber and a nonreturn valve prevents
backflow from the plunger chamber into the screw. The
plunger then drives the shot through the nozzle and into
the mold.[60,62,69] The LSR is fed into the barrel using the
same methodology as a reciprocating screw injection
unit. The plunger style is reported to have increased shot
accuracy, desired in micromolding.[62,69] No significant
difference in the screw/plunger L/D or compression ratio
was reported between plunger injection and reciprocating
injection molding machines.[60,62,69]
Machines are available in both configurations with
shot sizes ranging from less than 2 cm3 to above 108 cm3.
No work was identified regarding the impact of one
plastication method over another in LSR injection
molding.
The barrel temperature typically is controlled by a
water jacket. The barrel often is chilled to 10–20
C to pre-
vent premature curing, although some barrels are run at
room temperature.[58,61,63,70] The impact of barrel tem-
perature has not been discussed in the literature. Limited
sources have suggested that the LSR could be preheated
to 40–80
C to reduce cycle time.[17] For many LSR mate-
rials, however, preheating poses an increased risk of pre-
mature curing in the barrel. After a production run the
injection barrel is often detached and put into a freezer at
about −20
C to slow the curing reaction; this method is
used to store the barrel for a longer time between runs
without cleaning or purging.[70]
Typical LSR screw speeds range between 50 RPM[66]
and 200 RPM.[61] The back pressure has been reported to
be near 0 MPa,[61] may be as high as 6 MPa.[12,17,61,66]
This is compared to polypropylene (PP) back pressure
reported between 6 and 9 MPa. The back pressure may
336
be set higher or lower based on the material properties,
feed pressure, and screw recovery time. The screw recov-
ery time varies with the shot size, raw material behavior,
that is, viscosity, screw speed, and feed pressure. One
example reported a screw recovery of 25 s.[66] Decompres-
sion was reported as a potential solution to reducing
material leakage in open system cold runners at the noz-
zle tip.[17]
3.3 | Injection
The injection rate depends the cure rate and time, which
are directly related to the LSR composition, mold temper-
ature, and part geometry, that is, part volume, part thick-
ness, and flow path length. This injection rate is
maximized to prevent premature curing and to reduce
cycle time. Premature curing causes short shots
(i.e., incomplete filling) and surface defects associated
with curing of the LSR as it is injected into the mold cav-
ity. The injection rate is limited by flash from over-pres-
surization, air entrapment, and excessive material
shearing that may separate fillers and additives such as
color. Many commercial LSR processing guides recom-
mend that injection (filling) be completed in
0.5–3 s.[12,17,71,72]
LSR injection molding machines commonly allow the
injection phase to be driven and/or limited by fill pres-
sure and the injection rate. The actual injection rate is set
as a volumetric flow rate or a linear rate of screw move-
ment. This injection rate or injection velocity is limited
by the pressure available in the machine settings. The
injection pressure is minimized to prevent over pressuri-
zation and flashing in the gate and cavity. Although
injection pressures have ranged from 0.03 MPa to greater
than 100 MPa, typical LSR injection pressures are 1 MPa
to 80 MPa.[12,61,63,71,73] Injection rates or velocities can be
optimized by profiling of the injection phase into multi-
ple stages when needed for filling of complex geometries.
Shear heating is expected to be a function of injection
rate, but no studies investigated this phenomenon in
LSR. The highest shear rates are expected at the gate
where the flow rate is high and flow area is small. The
material temperature, however, rapidly increases when
contacting the heated mold. So, the contribution of shear
heating may be considered minimal compared to the con-
tribution contact with the mold walls and curing of
the LSR.
The viscosity of the uncured LSR decreases with
increasing shear rate.[74] At room temperature before cur-
ing becomes significant, the uncured LSR has viscosity
similar to that of molten PP (Figure 4).[22] LSR viscosity
varies between grades (Figure 4). The PP viscosity
BONT ET AL.
demonstrates the characteristic plateau expected for ther-
moplastics at low shear rates. Reported experimental data
shows a transition phase at low shear rates, stopping
short of a plateau.[63,74] Shear thinning may contribute to
process sensitivity in multicavity molding. The injection
rate was reported to be a driving variable for shear
induced flow imbalance that result in unbalanced filling
of multicavity molds.[72] At the elevated temperatures in
the injection mold, however, curing causes a dramatic
increase in the LSR's viscosity.
The amount of LSR delivered to the mold during
injection is controlled by the switchover point.[66] Since
LSR expands as it heats up in the mold, subvolumetric
filling is used to prevent over-pressurization and flashing
of the cavity.[15,58,74,75] The actual shot size ranges from
92% to 100% of the cavity volume,[75] where filling more
than 91% has been reported to produce more stable pro-
cesses.[58,74] Typically filling is reported between 98% and
99% of the cavity volume[17,65,66,70] to achieve a full fill
due to thermal expansion from heating within the cav-
ity.[12,65,70] Typical cavity pressures are approximately 0.8
to 2.5 MPa,[61] but cavity pressures greater than 40 MPa
have been reported.[17]
When the shot size (mass) was allowed to vary, the
part weight increased and shrinkage decreased as the
injection rate was increased.[70] The injection rate, how-
ever, had very little impact on part volume when the mass
was held constant.[66,76] The injection rate also has little
impact in general on hardness, tensile strength, elonga-
tion, and degree of swelling when exposed to solvents.[76]
Cold runner systems exhibit different cavity pressure
and temperature profiles compared to a hot runner. Cold
runner systems minimize the impact of mold temperature
on part weights as compared to hot gates and
10,000
LSR 30 Shore A
LSR 70 Shore A
1,000
Viscosity (Pa-s)
PP
100
10
1
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Shear Rate (1/s)
F I G U R E 4 Viscosity versus shear rate of two different generic
uncured liquid silicone rubbers (LSRs) calculated using the
combined Castro-Macosko (8) and Cross (10) equations. Generic PP
viscosity versus shear rate was calculated using Cross-WLF
viscosity model. All model coefficient populated from reported
values[22]
BONT ET AL.
runners.[76,77] Switching from fill to pack based on a pres-
sure limit or a volume limit had negligible effects on qual-
ity when a cold runner was used. The hot runner process
was shown to be more sensitive to changes in the
switchover type. A limited study showed the switchover
changed the part weight, volume, ultimate elongation, and
tensile strength on a hot runner molded LSR parts.[76]
3.4 | Packing and holding
LSR experiences thermal expansion as it heats up from
contact with the hot mold. Depending of the degree of
fill, the cavity pressure may increase as the LSR expands.
Depressurization occurs through flashing and backflow
through the gate. Packing pressures are minimized to
reduce the risk of flash as the silicone heats up and
expands within the cavity. Packing can help drive LSR
into harder to fill regions of the cavity. Increased packing
pressure decreases shrinkage[63] but risks increased flash-
ing, back-grind, and other part defects.[66]
Hold pressure commonly is used to prevent backflow
of LSR through the gate prior to gate solidification from
curing[12]; please note that with cold runners, pneumatic
valve gates often are used to prevent backflow into the
nozzle.[76] The hold pressure is minimized to prevent
overpacking of the cavity, which risks increased flash.
Reported hold pressures have ranged from 0.5 MPa to
above 5 MPa[11,12,14,17,63,66,70,71,73]; in some applications,
the hold pressure has exceeded 36 MPa.[61] Increasing the
hold pressure causes an increase in part weight and den-
sity as the material compresses into the cavity.[66,76]
Increases in part weight and density are amplified in cold
runner systems.[76] The hold time is dependent on the
cross-section thickness, temperatures, cure kinetics, and
maximum cavity pressure. As a result, reported hold
times have varied from 0.5 s to above 4 s.[12,17]
3.5 | Clamp force
Sufficient clamp force is required to prevent the mold from
opening under the cavity pressure and mitigate flash. The
suggested LSR clamp force is 0.8–2.5 kN/cm2 based on pro-
jected part area.[61] The resultant clamp force has reported
from less than 14 kN to greater than 290 kN, based on a
number of factors including mold and cavity size.[17,71]
3.6 | Curing
LSR contacting the hot mold begins to experience the
curing process. As shown in Figure 5, the rate of cure
337
(dc/dt) significantly increases with increasing tempera-
ture.[22,78] The mold is typically set to a temperature
between 120 and 160
C.[12,63,71,74,76] The mold tempera-
ture may be set well outside this range based on unique
material or other process consideration. For example, a
very thick part such as large electrical power insulation
may require a reduction in the mold temperature to pre-
vent premature curing and related defects. Temperatures
as low as 80
C have been reported.[73] In some cases, the
cold runner molds are run at a higher temperature to
reduce the cure time since there is little risk of premature
curing in the gate and runner.[76,77] Commercial LSRs
often cure in 3–7 s per millimeter of wall thickness for
mold temperatures greater than 140
C.[12,74] The cure
time has a practical minimum required but increasing
the number of cavities reduces the cycle time per part.[79]
Curing causes the polymer network to develop,
resulting in increased restrictions to chain motion. This
reduction in mobility causes an increase in viscosity until
the LSR becomes an elastic solid.[80]
3.7 | Postcuring
To prevent deformation and tearing, part ejection from
the mold typically occurs at 75%–95% completion of
cure.[74] Full conversion is often achieved through a post-
cure or postbake process. Although some materials and
applications may not require a postcure, most material
suppliers recommend heating parts after ejection for
additional time. This heating ensures that the parts reach
full conversion, thus achieving final properties[15,81] and
normalizing the final material properties.[11,12,14,17] Typi-
cal postcure conditions are 4 h at 200
C in an
oven.[11,12,17] Experimental testing can be used to
0.16
135 °C
0.14
150 °C
Cure rate dα/dt (1/s)
0.12 165 °C
180 °C
0.10
195 °C
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
F I G U R E 5 Rate of cure over time. Calculated using n-th order
kinetics model (5) and reported coefficients for general grade liquid
silicone rubber[22]
338
determine what the minimum postcure duration and/or
temperature is required for a specific product.
3.8 | Linear shrinkage
Linear shrinkage varies with the LSR composition, batch,
and processing temperature, pressure, injection speed,
and part geometry. Linear shrinkage between 1.5% and
4% have been reported by LSR manufacturers. A postcure
may add an additional 0.3–0.7% linear shrink to the final
product after molding.[11,12,14,17,54] The mold temperature
and cavity pressure have been shown to be the primary
drivers of linear part shrinkage.[63,66,70,82] When pressure
build up from thermal expansion causes backflow into
the barrel, there is a reduction in material density within
the cavity, and an associated decrease in part weight,
increase in linear shrinkage, and reduction in final part
volume.[66] Sufficient hold pressure generally increases
the part weight and volume as the material compresses
into the cavity,[76] resulting in small reductions in linear
shrinkage.[66] This effect is amplified in cold runner sys-
tems.[76] The high pressure near the gate region caused
microsurface features near the gate to be 2%–4% taller
than features at the opposite end of the mold, likely due
to greater packing and compression of material in that
region.[71] Higher injection speeds promoted greater cav-
ity packing and a reduction in shrinkage when the shot
mass was allowed to vary.[63,70,82] Injection speed was
shown to have little impact on linear shrinkage when the
part mass was controlled.[66] Durometer and cure time
have been shown to have only a minor impact on shrink-
age. A reduction in mass and small increase in shrinkage
was reported likely due to off-gassing of volatiles.[66]
Investigations of flow path and direction related phe-
nomena in LSR molding processes and product were lim-
ited. Instances were reported where greater linear
shrinkage was experienced in the flow direction as com-
pared to the cross-flow direction.[66] Researchers have
also reported complex moduli 23% greater in the flow
direction compared to the traverse flow direction. The
modulus showed a 17% decrease near the end of the cav-
ity as compared to near the gate.[83]
3.9 | Overmolding and insert molding
Overmolding, two-shot molding, and insert molding are
all processes when LSR is molded directly onto or around
components made of other materials such as metal, ther-
moplastic, another silicone, etc., thereby allowing a com-
bination of material properties and the direct assembly of
LSR onto another other material. The first shot or
BONT ET AL.
inserted component is typically the more rigid material
with the more flexible LSR material being formed around
or onto it. LSR overmolding or two-shot molding involves
molding a polymeric component and then molding an
LSR material directly onto it while it remains in the same
mold. Components within the mold are indexed or
rotated to allow the first material (commonly thermoplas-
tic) to be formed and then the second material (typically
LSR) to the formed directly on top.[84,85] Similarly, insert
molding involves loading a previously formed part
(metal, plastic, etc.,) into the mold and injecting the LSR
around it. Operators or pick-and-place robots may be
used to physically install the insert into the mold prior to
injection.[60] In these processes, the other material must
withstand the temperatures associated with the LSR
molding and curing process while maintaining sufficient
rigidity. This typically excludes olefins and other com-
modity resins, while favoring engineering thermoplastics
with superior high temperature performance, other ther-
mosetting resins, metals, and ceramics.
Adhesion between the LSR and the overmolded com-
ponent can be achieved by mechanical and/or chemical
interactions. In thermoplastic overmolding, one approach
reported uses modified LSR with adhesion promotors
targeting thermoplastics. These have been reported as
organofunctional silanes such as amino-silane, epox-
silane, glycidoxy-silane, methacryloxy-silanes, or simi-
lar.[86] This reduces secondary process steps such as prim-
ing[87] or other surface treatments, that is, corona,
atmospheric pressure plasma jet, and Pyrosil flame.[86,87]
The bond strength varies significantly between LSR
grades, substrates, and surface treatment.[86,87] An
untreated generic silicone has little or no adhesion to
most substrates. Plasma or Pyrosol surface treatments
were both shown to achieve bonding of generic LSR to
thermoplastic. Adhesion modified silicone was reported
to increase bond strength by between 150% and
1100%.[86]
Examples of adhesion of modified LSR to phenylene
sulfide (PPS), polycarbonate (PC), polyether ether ketone
(PEEK), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) have been
reported.[86] Adhesion of modified LSR to polybutylene
terephthalate (PBT) and polyamide (PA12) has also been
reported.[86,88,89]
Minimal thermoplastic mold temperature and
increased LSR overmold temperatures were suggested to
improve adhesion, but the bond strength was not
reported.[88] LSR overmolding bond strength measure-
ments have been reported using either a tensile test or
peel test approach. Peel tests were reported in a direction
perpendicular to the bond.[86,88]
Postcuring or tempering of overmolded components
reported mixed results. While postcuring has been
BONT ET AL. 339

reported to increase the adhesion strength,[88] it has also
been reported to drive volatiles in thermoplastic compo-
nents to the surface causing a decrease in adhesion.[89]
The time and temperature associated with postcuring can
also have an annealing or aging effect on the insert caus-
ing warpage from molded in stress.[90]
3.10 | Process feedback
The cavity pressure can be measured using a pressure
sensor in the cavity wall.[91] The cavity pressure can pro-
vide useful input in the process feedback loop. Although
commercially available, the degree of use of in-cavity
pressure measurement in industrial applications is not
clear from the literature.
Fuzzy-logic approaches have been used to optimize
the LSR injection molding cycle and improve yield based
on experimental data sets. Both closed loop and open
loop approaches have been employed.[70,91] Machine con-
trollers have been programmed to optimize the part
weight by changing the shot size. The algorithm rules
defined an increase or decrease to the shot size to com-
pensate for process disturbances such temperature vari-
ance.[91] Software applications have been developed to
convert a process variance such as a visual defect or
dimensional excursion into a proposed process variable
change in mold temperature, cure time, injection speed
and pressure, screw speed, and holding pressure. By
entering the deviation from nominal, the application pro-
posed a series of weighted corrections to drive the process
toward a target through iteration.[70]

T A B L E 1 Major LSR injection

molding process variable summary
Reported/common
Variable range Impact reported



Mold temperature 80–220 C/140–220 C Increased rate of cure, durometer,
and shrinkage. Viscosity decreased
until increased by curing.
Decreased tensile strength and
elongation[11,12,14,17,54,63,70,71,74,76,82]
The transient relaxation modulus
decreased with increasing
temperature[92]
Injection pressure 0.3–100 MPa/1–10 MPa Decreased shrinkage[12,63,70,71,73]
Hold pressure 0.5–3.4 MPa No change in shrinkage if mass is
held constant,[66] otherwise
shrinkage decreased with increased
pressure[12,63,70,71,73]
Fill time 0.5–3 s No reported changes to tensile
strength, elongation, or durometer.
Both decreasing shrinkage and no
impact on shrinkage
reported[12,17,70–72,82]
Clamp force 14–290 kN Impact not considered[17,71]
Viscosity (commercial <5 to >670 Pa s Decreased with temperature and
LSR) shear rate until degree of cure
causes increase[11,93]
Degree of curing 0%–100% Increases with time and temperature.
Viscosity increased with increasing
degree of cure. [17,70,80,93]
Increased transient relaxation
modulus.[94]
Part ejection typically occurs at 75%–
95% completion of cure.[74]
Cure time 0.5–7 s/mm of part Cure time decreases with increasing
thickness temperature.[17] Increased cure
time causes an increase in degree
of cure
340 BONT ET AL.

This section on processing has reviewed the ranges 1.00

and general impact of each major process step and vari- 0.90

Incubation Period (s)

0.80
able in the LSR injection molding process. Table 1 is a
0.70
limited summary of processing variables, molding condi- 0.60
tions, and associated behavior trends from the literature. 0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
4 | MODELING AND SIMULATION 0.10
0.00
Researchers have studied behavior and modeling of LSR 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
flow, curing, viscosity, PVT, and shrinkage in injection Temperature ( C)
molding. A few major models are discussed and their
F I G U R E 6 Incubation period of a commercial liquid silicone
application in the current state of LSR injection molding rubber calculated using Equation (1) and reported coefficients[78]
process simulation. Simulation employs a combination of
these established models to represent LSR material
behaviors during the mold filling, pack and hold, and viscosity because it hinders chain motion.[74,100] This
curing, phases. change in viscosity is temperature dependent in Figure 7
for a commercial 70 Shoe A LSR, where a higher heating
rate causes a more rapid change in viscosity.
4.1 | Flow models As the crosslinking increases, the gel point marks a
transition of the material from a liquid to a solid phase.
As with polymer melts, LSR exhibits laminar flow, often The time to reach the gel point is based on the tempera-
termed fountain flow, when traveling through the run- ture and shear rate.[92] Crosslinking networks that experi-
ners, gates, and cavities of the mold. With this flow, ence large shear strains may experience a delay in the gel
newly arriving LSR flows through the center of a channel point.[101] Once the gel point is reached, the material rap-
created by the earlier LSR and there is shear flow in the idly increases in viscosity until flow ceases and the LSR
channel and elongational flow at the flow front.[95] The finally becomes an elastic solid. As LSR approaches tem-
viscosity of reactive polymers change as some polymer peratures near the molding range, curing progress very
experience increases in temperature and residence time rapidly.
compared with other regions.[96] Fountain flow has been The Arrhenius model is one of the simplest models
suggested as a source of deviation when simulating LSR for modeling the incubation period, ti, as a function of an
due to cure evolution and temperature sensitivity.[95] isothermal temperature, T. It is expressed as[75]:
Limited reports have shown commercial injection mold-
T0
ing simulation software applying the Navier–Stokes equa- t i ðT Þ = t 0  e T ð1Þ
tion to model flow through three dimensional
elements[22,73,75,95,97,98] or the generalized Hele-Shaw
model to model flow through two dimensional where the time constant, to, and reference temperature,
elements.[22] To, are obtained by fitting material specific data.

4.2 | Curing models 1,000,000 450

Complex Viscosity (Pa-s)

425
Temperature (K)

Increasing temperature accelerates curing as the LSR 100,000 400

flows within the mold. LSR experiences a delay between 375
the start of the curing reaction and showing changes 10,000 350
called induction time or incubation period.[38,99] shown 325
in Figure 6, the incubation period is reduced with 1,000 300
increasing resin temperature.[74,78,99] At typical molding 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
temperatures, LSR materials have an incubation time Time (s)
approaching instantaneous. Viscosity ramping at 5 K/s Viscosity ramping at 10 K/s
When the LSR enters the mold, its viscosity initially Temperature ramping at 5 K/s Temperature ramping at 10 K/s
drops as the free volume increases with temperature.
Crosslinking, however, quickly causes an increase in FIGURE 7 Complex viscosity and temperature versus time
BONT ET AL.
Curing is an exothermic reaction, so differential scan-
ning calorimetry (DSC) data may be used to find the
induction time at various temperatures. The model can
then be fit against a natural log of the induction time
ln(ti) versus the inverse of the temperature 1/T.[99] The
scorch index,
t , is defined as a dimensionless measure of
the completion of the incubation period, that is, it starts
at zero and ends at one.[74,99] As shown in Equation (2),
the incubation period, t, of nonisothermal processes is
determined by integrating the incubation time contribu-
tions until the scorch index reaches unity.[74,78]
ðt
dt

t = ð2Þ
0 t i ðT Þ
Once the incubation time has been reached, empirical
autocatalytic models have been used for conversion.
Equation (3) defines one example for the degree of con-
version, α, as [99,102]:
k  tn
αðT, t Þ = ð3Þ
1 + k  tn
The Isayev model combines the empirical model
Equation (3) with Equation (4), where E and n are
kinetic constants fit to experimental DSC data[99] or alter-
natively rheology data.[80,103] Equation (4) defines k, as a
rate constant:
k = k0 e − RT
E
ð4Þ
where R is the universal gas constant and k0 is a
constant. K, K0, and n are fit using multilinear regres-
sion.[104] The incubation period first is handled separately
using Equations (1) and (2). In LSR, the Isayev model has
been reported to deviate due to differences in induction
period.[104]
The Kamal-Sourour model, also referred to an auto-
catalytic or n-th order reaction kinetics model, includes
both the incubation period and the conversion
rate.[39,80,102] This model calculates the rate of cure, dα/
dt, as[78,104,105]:
dα
= ðK 1 + K 2 αm Þð1 −αÞn ð5Þ
dt
where the temperature dependence is modeled by K1
and K2:
K 1 = A1 e½ − RT 
E1
ð6Þ
341
K 2 = A2 e½ − RT 
E2
ð7Þ
In this model, T is the temperature and R is the uni-
versal gas constant. The temperature independent con-
stants, m, n, E1, E2, A1, and A2, are typically fit to
experimental DSC or rheology data[80] through linear
regression[104,106] or other techniques.[64,107]
The Kamal–Sourour model was reported as showing
relatively good alignment with reported experimental
cure rates.[80] At relatively high heating rates, deviations
occur due to temperature sensitivity and changes to diffu-
sion that effect the cure rate.[105,107] The actual cure rate
is slowed near the end of curing by changes in reactant
concentrations and changes to diffusion of reactive com-
ponents.[106] A comparison study[104] showed that the
Kamal-Sourour model provided more accurate predic-
tions at greater heating rates compared to the Isayev
model. The Isayev model was shown to predict cure rates
more closely at lower temperatures compared to the
Kamal-Sourour model.[80,104]
The accuracy of these models is highly dependent on
the accuracy of the data and the fitting methods.[107] As
mentioned above, the curing reaction rate can be mea-
sured using DSC or rheology. Since the curing reaction
releases heat, DSC characterizes the conversion reaction
by measuring the heat of reaction as crosslinking pro-
gresses. Alternatively, a rheometer may be used by
assuming the degree of cure is proportional to the change
in viscosity.[108] These data may then be fit to the various
models.[39,80,97,78,104,100,109,64]
Commercially available engineering software pack-
ages offer reactive 3D simulation capabilities. The simula-
tion models and methods are not publicly available for
many of the systems, but many systems allow user
defined models. The Kamal-Sourour model was applied
as the default in several commercial software packages
applied to the LSR injection process, including Autodesk
MoldFlow®,[22] Moldex3D,[24,98] and SigmaSoft® Virtual
Molding.[110] Researchers have applied the Kamal
Sourour model to ANYSYS Fluent simulations.[73,97] Sim-
con CADMOULD FEM was reported as using a combina-
tion of the scorch index and Isayev curing model to
simulate the curing reaction.[75]
4.3 | Viscosity models
The viscosity of uncured LSR ranges from about 5 to
670 Pa s, depending on the grade.[11] LSR viscosity behav-
ior shows improved simulation performance when the
degree of cure, temperature, and shear rate is considered
342
in the models.[22,78,97,98,111] The Cross model and the
Castro-Macosko viscosity model are two well-described
examples within the literature and commercial software.
The Castro-Macosko model describes the viscosity η(α, T)
as a function of degree of cure, α, and temperature, T,[112]
using:
 ðC1 − C2 αÞ
αg
ηðα, T Þ = ηo  ð8Þ
αg −α
where αg is the degree of cure at the gel point, the tem-
perature dependence is handled by the ηo term,[78,112]
and material-specific constants Aƞ, Tb, C1, and C2 are
obtained from fitting experimental reactive and
nonreacting viscosity data[113] as detailed below in
Equation (9).
η0 = Aƞ  eð T Þ
Tb
ð9Þ
In the Cross model, the viscosity, η', is a function of
temperature T, shear rate γ˙, and pressure, P,[114]:
η0
η0 =  1 − n ð10Þ
η γ_
1+ τ
where the constant τ* is numerically fit and related to
the transition between the Newtonian and power law
regions of the shear dependence.
The exponent 1-n defines the slope of the power law
region.[111] The reference viscosity, ηo, reflects the zero
shear viscosity[114] and introduces the temperature and
pressure dependence to the viscosity behavior; it is
defined as:
η0 = B:eð T Þ :eðβ:pÞ
Tb
ð11Þ
where the coefficients B, β, and Tb are constant and fit to
experimental viscosity data.
The influence of shear rate may be combined with the
temperature and degree of cure dependence by substituting
the Cross component defined in Equation (10) into ηo in the
Castro-Macosko model in Equation (8). The pressure influ-
ence can then be excluded or included by subsequently
substituting Equations (9) or (11), respectively.[22,78,98,111]
These models have shown relatively good alignment with
experimental viscosity versus shear rate, temperature, and
degree of crosslinking.[98,111] Higher heating rates and ele-
vated temperatures exhibit greater deviations between exper-
imental and predicted results.[78,104]
BONT ET AL.
The viscosity models are dependent on the data used
to fit the models and the accuracy of the degree of cure
estimation. The viscosity of LSR is commonly measured
using a rotating or oscillating parallel plate rheome-
ters[55,63,78,92,104,111,115,116] or cone and plate rheome-
ters.[15,73,97,115,117] Due to the relatively high cure rate at
molding temperatures, viscosity testing has been limited
to shear rates and temperatures well below typical mold-
ing conditions. There is insufficient time for a test sample
to reach steady-state temperatures before rapidly curing.
Commonly reported silicone oscillatory rheometry test
temperatures have been between 40
C and 110
C and
shear rates between 0.1 and 10 s−1. Commercial LSR doc-
umentation often reports shear rates in this low range
even as the capability of the test equipment expands.
Researchers have investigated the unmixed and iso-
lated A and B components of LSR. Noncuring silicone
materials allow the rheology to be studied at elevated
steady-state temperatures while bypassing the time
dependence and flow complexities introduced by curing
during experimental setup.[95,115] This approach extends
the working time and temperature of rheology testing by
removing the curing reaction. One such example tests
unreacted individual LSR components in a capillary rhe-
ometer. These materials can achieve the temperature and
shear rates representative of the LSR injection molding
process, where the influence of curing is later added and
extrapolated from low temperature reactive
testing.[15,74,115]
Many of the commercial software packages allow the
application of user-defined rheological models. These sys-
tems typically only include the behavioral effects for
which models are selected and fully populated. For exam-
ple, the models for viscosity may include pressure depen-
dence, but the sources identified generally did not do
so. This absence may be due to potentially low impact or
difficulty in measurement. Viscoelastic effects are often
excluded, but may be included by incorporating the
White-Metzner model.[98,118] No significant literature
exploring the impact or effectiveness of applying simula-
tions of viscoelastic effects on LSR process simulation
was identified.
4.4 | Pressure-volume-temperature
and volumetric shrinkage
The pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) relationship for
LSR provides insight into the process behavior during fill-
ing, packing/holding, curing, and part cooling required
to improve repeatability and reduce failures.[66,74] As
shown in Figure 8, the specific volume of LSR increases
with increasing temperature due to thermal expansion.
BONT ET AL.
LSR compresses as the pressure increases. The compress-
ibility plateaus as the free volume limit are reached at
pressures well above the molding range.[119,120]
Although not an exhaustive list, the measurement
methods and PVT models considered are used in many of
the reviewed literature and associated commercial simu-
lation software. Numerous PVT measurement methods
and models exist that vary in their levels of accuracy and
difficulty. Dilatometry has been reported for measuring
LSR PVT behavior.[120] Alternatively, a modified capillary
rheometer or other pressure vessel has been used by vary-
ing while measuring pressure, temperature, or
volume.[121]
Literature for the PVT modeling of LSR has generally
only considered two states: (a) liquid before significant
curing or (b) as a cured solid. The transition phase
between liquid and solid is complicated by the rapid cure
reactions that cannot be measured using steady state test-
ing methodologies. The PVT behavior of various sili-
cones, including oils, frequently has been fit models
developed for thermoplastics or epoxies.[122,123]
Some models consider the differences in PVT behav-
ior between the liquid uncured and cured solid states.
The Dual Domain Tait model, for example, models the
specific volume as a function of temperature and pres-
sure, V(T,P), using:
 
P experimental PVT data. The specific volume was shown
V ðT, PÞ = V 0 ðT Þ  1 −C  ln 1 +
B ðT Þ
where V0 is the specific volume at zero pressure, C is a
universal constant equal to 0.0894, B(T) is the pressure
sensitivity, and V1(T,P) is the specific volume function
for the solid-state.[123–125]
B(T) is the Tait parameter defined in Equation (13).
Variants of V0, B(T) Equations (13) and (14),[123] and V1
have been reported based on fit to a specific
1.05
0 MPa
30 MPa
Specific Volume cm 3/g
1.00
60 MPa
100 MPa
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
20 70 120
Temperature ( C)
F I G U R E 8 Uncured liquid silicone rubber specific volume
versus temperature and pressure[22]
343
polymer.[22,123,125] B0, or B1, B2, and B3 are fit to experi-
mental PVT data.[123]
BðT Þ = B0 expð −B1 T Þ ð13Þ
B ðT Þ = B 1 + B 2 T + B 3 T 2 ð14Þ
The Tait model has been reported as fitting silicone
oils[126,127] and fully-cured silicone materials.[120,128] The
Tait model is fit to data collected using pressure and vol-
ume controlled dilatometry and others such as a pressure
chamber, diamond anvil cell approach, and others.[120,128]
]
The Tait model matches changes in both pressure and
temperature for the range experienced in processing,
leading to use in multiple research,[111,129] and software
applications.[22,24]
Other models are found within the literature with
simpler data fitting requirements.[74,75] For example, the
specific volume as a function of temperature and pres-
sure, V(T,P), in Equation (15) was modeled as[74]:
K1 K2
V ðT,PÞ = + T ð15Þ
K3 + P K4 + P
where P is pressure, T is temperature, and the values K1,
K2, K3, and K4 are material specific constants and fit to

+ V 1 ðT, PÞ ð12Þ
to be represented relatively well as a function of tempera-
tures and pressure within the molding process range.[74]
Tracking the changes in the LSR PVT state during fill-
ing, heating, curing, and then cooling after ejection pro-
vide a method for modeling of the volumetric shrinkage.
Commercial injection molding simulation software report
offering linear shrinkage capability by assuming a rela-
tionship with the volumetric shrinkage or by relating the
stress and strain generated during the process to linear
shrinkage using PVT behavior and mechanical properties
data such as elastic modulus, poisons ratio, shear modu-
lus, and coefficient of thermal expansion.[22,24,129] No
LSR specific linear shrinkage simulation studies were
identified.
4.5 | Material database
Commercial software programs continue to add LSR
materials to their libraries. A few common material
examples include, but are not limited to, Wacker Chemie
170 220
AG Elastosil® LR3003/70[22,98,130]; Momentive Perfor-
mance Materials Silopren™ LSR 2060, 2650,[22,98] and
2660[22]; and Dow Corning Xiameter™ RBL materials
such as 2004–20, 30, 40, 50, 60,[22] 70,[22,130] and 75 and
344
9200–30, 40, 50, 60, 65, and 70.[22] Rheology and curing
model parameters were all generally populated. However,
it was observed that not all LSR materials in all software
packages contain fully defined PVT or mechanical behav-
ior model data.
4.6 | Selected case studies
Process simulation within the LSR injection molding lit-
erature support design and manufacturing engineering
efforts to minimize time and resources required to
develop new LSR products. A few examples are discussed
demonstrating how modeling and simulation have been
used to troubleshooting processes, to avoiding potential
fill and cure related failure modes, to minimize substrate
damage during overmolding, and optimization of gate
locations and processing conditions.
Ziebell and Bhogesra[111] characterized LSR using a
three-phase methodology for a parallel plate rheometer
and then simulated the injection molding of a sample
component. Visual defects in the gate and body of the
molded LSR samples were traced to high shear stress in
regions starting to gel as shown by the simulation. Simu-
lations of cavity pressure were within 5% of experimental
values measured during the actual molding process with
in-cavity pressure transducers.
Hopmann and Röbig[1] considered mold design for an
optical LSR lens overmolded onto a circuit board. The
simulation considered shear stresses at the interface with
the circuit board and optimized flow rates to drive air
entrapments to the parting line where they could be
vented out of the cavity. The relatively low flow front
temperature suggested that potential weld lines could be
minimized, where a lower degree of cure is expected as
the flow fronts meet. High levels of cure in LSR may
cause flow fronts to fail to fully merge resulting in a weld
line. Cavity pressure and temperature were measured
using a probe insert in the cavity wall to correlate
processing conditions with optical performance of the
final molded lens with luminous flux within 5% and max-
imum illumination within 10% of simulation. A short
shot analysis identified some small deviations between
simulated and experimental results, where gravitational
effects on the low viscosity LSR and continued flow
within the cavity after the end of injection were seen only
in the experimental results.
Ou et al.[103] investigated two-shot molding of an LSR
onto a 30% glass-filled PA12 using a two-shot rotary mold
that would rotate 180 degrees with the plastic part con-
tained in the cavity to align it with the LSR cavity for the
second shot. Both materials were characterized using a
parallel plate rheometer to determine proper injection
BONT ET AL.
conditions to achieve a complete fill and sufficient degree
of curing.[85,103] The filling, packing, and cooling phases
were simulated for the injection molding of the PA12
component. The temperature profile of the PA12
subcomponent was then used as initial conditions for the
LSR injection molding simulation, while the temperature
of the mold walls was held constant. Experimental flow
front advancement using a short shot study was reported
to be within 3% of simulation results.
5 | C O N C L U S I O N S AN D O U T L O O K
One of the shared goals expressed within the literature
was to develop and implement tools to understand,
predict, and optimize the design of materials, molds,
and processes prior to building or implementing any
physical tooling. A portion of the LSR body of knowl-
edge focused on modeling a narrow set of variables
such as the degree of cure, cure time, and shot size.
Curing, PVT profile, shear rate, and viscosity were
shown to be major drivers of process behavior and sta-
bility as well as part shrinkage. The literature shows a
trend toward increasing model detail and accuracy by
accounting for curing, viscosity, heat transfer, pres-
sure, temperature, and tooling interactions. With the
use of finite element analysis approaches, researchers
have reported alignment of 2%–5% between experi-
mental and predicted temperature, pressure, and cur-
ing within the cavity.[93,111]
Core challenges identified within the literature
include improving data collection and fitting with models
due to rapidly changing properties with respect to time,
temperature, and degree of cure. The reaction time for
LSR at injection molding temperatures is below the range
of many cure measurement methods leading to extrapola-
tion and risk of modeling deviations. The literature
shows a trend of incorporating increasingly detailed LSR
material, process, and equipment phenomena into
modeling.[1,74,93,111] Literature was limited considering
the impact of the rapidly evolving viscoelastic and shear
stress behavior, premature curing, shrinkage prediction,
and other associated interactions with the mold during
LSR molding cycle. Relevant works are trending toward
achieving an increasing alignment between experimental
process and simulation results. Air entrapment, venting,
and vacuum applied to the cavity play a significant role
in LSR mold design, construction, and processing.
Venting and application of vacuum are frequently evalu-
ated experimentally during prototyping. Various software
packagers support performing a venting
analysis,[22–24,130] but significant LSR injection molding
research was not identified.
BONT ET AL.
LSR overmolding also continues to be a subject of com-
mercial and academic interest. LSR overmolding research
considers material compatibility, surface interactions, sub-
strate interactions, and impact processing condi-
tion.[1,84,86,89,103] Given the diversity of LSR and substrate
materials, gaps were identified in modeling and prediction of
bond strength. Interactions between LSR, substrates, mold
design, and processing conditions remain of interest and
often involve significant prototype efforts to develop. With
the continued growing importance and market share of LSR
these topics will undoubtedly be the focus of future research.
ORCID
Matthew Bont https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0222-123X
R EF E RE N C E S
[1] C. Hopmann, M. Röbig, J. Elastomers Plast. 2017, 49, 62.
[2] S. C. Shit, P. Shah, Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 2013, 36, 355.
[3] H.-H. Moretto, M. Schulze, G. Wagner, Silicones. in
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany 2000.
[4] B. Reilly, J. Freedman, Rubber World 2015, 252, 19.
[5] M. Liu, J. Sun, Q. Chen, Sens. Actuators Phys. 2009, 151, 42.
[6] Y. Lin, F. Yin, Y. Liu, L. Wang, Y. Zhao, M. Farzaneh,
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019, 136, 47652.
[7] R. Helling, P. Seifried, D. Fritzsche, T. J. Simat, Food Addit.
Contam. Part A 2012, 29, 1489.
[8] Y. Zhang, Biomaterials 1996, 17, 2265.
[9] P. Mazurek, S. Vudayagiri, A. L. Skov, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019,
48, 1448.
[10] E. Delebecq, F. Ganachaud, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012,
4, 3340.
[11] Wacker solid and liquid silicone rubber material and
processing guidelines, http://www.wacker.com/cms/media/
publications/downloads/6709_EN.pdf.
[12] Bluestar Silicones. Healthcare liquid silicone rubber - injec-
tion molding guide, http://www.silbione.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/02/LSR-Users-Guide.pdf.
[13] P. Leopold, Conference proceedings, Annual Technical Con-
ference/ANTEC 2003, May 4–8, 2003, Nashville, Tennessee,
Society of Plastics Engineers, Brookfield, CT 2003.
[14] Momentive silicone elastomers, https://www.momentive.
com/products/literature/Silicone-Elastomers-Brochure/.
[15] W. Lynch, Handbook of Silicone Rubber Fabrication, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY 1978.
[16] M. Biron, Material Selection for Thermoplastic Parts - 12.4
Dielectric Strength, Elsevier, New York 2016.
[17] Dow Corning. rubber processing solutions: liquid injection
molding: processing guide for silastic liquid silicone rubber
(LSR) and silastic fluoro liquid silicone rubber (F-LSR),
https://www.dowcorning.com/content/publishedlit/45-1014_
Processing-guide-LSR-FLSR.pdf.
[18] Y. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Chen, Q. Nie, Q. Sun, Y. Wang,
J. Electrostat. 2009, 67, 422.
[19] D. J. Cornelius, C. M. Monroe, Polym. Eng. Sci. 1985, 25, 467.
[20] Rubber World 2019, 259, 10.
345
[21] Rubber Plast. News, 49, (2019).
[22] Autodesk Simulation Moldflow Insight 360, Autodesk,
(2015).
[23] SIGMASOFT VIRTUAL MOLDING, Sigma Engineering
GMBH, (2019).
[24] “Moldex3D”, CoreTech System Co., Ltd.
[25] “CADMOULD”, SIMCON.
[26] J. K. Fink, Liquid Silicone Rubber: Chemistry, Materials, and
Processing, Wiley-Scrivener, Hoboken 2019.
[27] S. J. Clarson, J. A. Semlyen, Siloxane Polymers, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1993.
[28] S. Z. Wu, J. E. Mark, Polym. Rev. 2007, 47, 463.
[29] V. Prajzler, P. Nekvindova, J. Spirkova, M. Novotny, J. Mater,
Sci. Mater. Electron. 2017, 28, 7951.
[30] K. Indulekha, P. K. Behera, R. S. Rajeev, C. Gouri, K. N.
Ninan, J. Fluor. Chem. 2017, 200, 24.
[31] G. Rajesh, P. Maji, M. Bhattacharya, A. Choudhury, N. Roy,
Polym. Compos. 2010, 18, 477.
[32] S. H. Goodman, D. Hanna, Handbook of Thermoset Plastics,
William Andrew, San Diego, CA 2014.
[33] B. Reilly, D. Peak Versatility of Silicone Chemistry for Elec-
tronics and Medical Device Applications, NuSil Technol-
ogy LLC.
[34] S. Grigoras, T. H. Lane, Conformational analysis of
substituted polysiloxane polymers. in Silicon-Based Polymer
Science (Eds: J. M. Zeigler, F. W. G. Fearon), American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC 1989, p. 125.
[35] E. Delebecq, N. Hermeline, A. Flers, F. Ganachaud, ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 3353.
[36] J. Heiner, B. Stenberg, M. Persson, Polym. Test. 2003, 22, 253.
[37] C.-L. Lee, Ollie Marko, J. Schulz, Organosiloxane composi-
tions for liquid injection, US4032502A
[38] L. Lewis, J. Stein, Y. Gao, R. E. Colborn, H. Hutchins, Plati-
num Met. Rev. 1997, 41, 66.
[39] Lina Maria Lopez, Modeling the vulcanization of liquid sili-
cone rubbers, Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wisconsin – Madison, 2004.
[40] C.-L. Lee, O. Marko, J. Schulz, Organosiloxane composition
for liquid injection moulding, GB1562993A
[41] D. R. Paul, J. E. Mark, Prog. Polym. Sci. 2010, 35, 893.
[42] L. Dewimille, B. Bresson, L. Bokobza, Polymer 2005, 46, 4135.
[43] P. Levresse, D. L. Feke, I. Manas-Zloczower, Polymer 1998,
39, 3919.
[44] D. E. Hanson, M. Hawley, R. Houlton, K. Chitanvis, P. Rae,
E. B. Orler, D. A. Wrobleski, Polymer 2005, 46, 10989.
[45] Y. R. Sliozberg, R. A. Mrozek, J. D. Schieber, M. Kröger, J. L.
Lenhart, J. W. Andzelm, Polymer 2013, 54, 2555.
[46] S. H. Yoo, C. Cohen, C.-Y. Hui, Polymer 2006, 47, 6226.
[47] A. R. Babu, N. Gundiah, Exp. Mech. 2014, 54, 1177.
[48] Y. Jia, S. Sun, L. Liu, Y. Mu, L. An, Acta Mater. 2004, 52,
4153.
[49] M. A. Sharaf, J. E. Mark, Polymer 1994, 35, 740.
[50] S. H. Yoo, L. Yee, C. Cohen, Polymer 2010, 51, 1608.
[51] K. Urayama, T. Kawamura, S. Kohjiya, Polymer 2009,
50, 347.
[52] M. Rebouah, G. Chagnon, D. Favier, San Sebastian Aniso-
tropic modeling of the Mullins effect and the residual strain
of filled silicone rubber, (2013).
346
[53] G. Machado, G. Chagnon, D. Favier, Mech. Mater. 2012,
50, 70.
[54] Shin-Etsu Silicone: LIMS Liquid Injection Molding System,
http://www.shinetsusilicones.com/files/Shin-Etsu%20LIMS%
20Guide%202014.pdf.
[55] A. V. Kovyazin, V. M. Kopylov, A. A. Savitskii, Int. Polym.
Sci. Technol. 2007, 34, 3.
[56] R. Bischoff, Prog. Polym. Sci. 1999, 24, 185.
[57] C. Geng, Q. Zhang, W. Lei, F. Yu, A. Lu, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
2017, 134, 45544.
[58] E. Haberstroh, W. Michaeli, E. Henze, Simulation of the Fill-
ing and Curing Phase in Injection Molding of Liquid Silicone
Rubber (LSR), Society of Plastics Engineers, Brookfield, CT
2000.
[59] R. Pelletier, Plast. Technol. 2011, 57, 40.
[60] B. Stritzke, Custom molding of thermoset elastomers: A com-
prehensive approach to materials, mold design, and
processing”, Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München
(2009).
[61] V. Goodship, Arburg (Firm), and Rapra Technology Limited,
eds., “Practical guide to injection moulding”, Rapra Technol-
ogy, Shawbury (2004).
[62] F. Johannaber, Injection Molding Machines: A User's Guide,
4th ed., Hanser, Munich, Germany 2008.
[63] N. Patel, Effects of processing conditions on the properties of
injection molded liquid silicone rubber, Master of Science in
Plastics Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell,
2002.
[64] L. M. Lopez, A. B. Cosgrove, J. P. Hernandez-Ortiz, T. A.
Osswald, Polym. Eng. Sci. 2007, 47, 675.
[65] J. LeFan, Liquid silicone rubber injection molding, http://
www.medical.saint-gobain.com/sites/default/files/LSR-
White-Paper_5-9-11_Jeff-Lefan.pdf.
[66] R.M. Mansfield, N. Patel, C.F. Barry, Effects of material and
processing conditions on the shrinkage of an injection
molded liquid silicone rubber part, in: Anaheim (2017),
pp. 1468–1473.
[67] M. Naitove, Plast. Technol. 2019, 65, 8.
[68] S. Broadbent, Plast. Technol. 2010, 56, 22.
[69] Sodick - Plustech, (n.d.).
[70] Firmin Z. Sillo, Fuzzy Logic optimization of injection mold-
ing of liquid silicone rubber, Master of Science in Plastics
Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2005.
[71] Yang Zhang, Michael Mischkot, Hans Norgaard, Poul-Erik
Hansen, Replication of microstructures on three-dimensional
gemoetrties by injection moulding of liquid silicone rubber,
in: Charlotte, NC (2015).
[72] J. Gadley J. Grumski, Understanding the existance and mag-
nitude of flow induced shear imbalances in liquid silicone
rubbers, in: Society of Plastics Engineers, (2011), 8.
[73] Lukasz T. Matysiak, Piotr Saj, Robert M. Sekula, First indus-
trial application of the 3D silicone molding simulation tool,
in: ECCOMAS CFD 2010, Lisbon, Portugal (2010), p. 15.
[74] E. Haberstroh, W. Michaeli, E. Henze, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.
2002, 21, 461.
[75] R. Capellmann, E. Haberstroh, T. Häuser, H. Wehr, Int.
Polym. Sci. Technol. 2003, 30(7), 312
[76] M. Barbaroux, G. Stalet, G. Regnier, J.-P. Trotignon, Int.
Polym. Process. 1997, 12, 174.
BONT ET AL.
[77] M. Barbaroux, G. Régnier, J. Verdu, Plast. Rubber Compos.
2000, 29, 229.
[78] D. Kim, E.-S. H. Byung-Ohk, M. Jo, J.-H. Lee, B.-H. Koo, Cur-
ing kinetic and viscosity behavior of liquid silicone rubber for
reaction injection molding analysis. in Society of Plastics Engi-
neers. ANTEC® 2015 - Proceedings of the Technical Confer-
ence, Orlando, March 23-25, 2015, 2867.
[79] Richard Akinnusotu, Rubber/silicone injection mold design-
ing, Masters of Science in Manufacturing Engineering,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1994.
[80] A. Harkous, G. Colomines, E. Leroy, P. Mousseau, R.
Deterre, React. Funct. Polym. 2016, 101, 20.
[81] Society of Plastics Engineers (United States), Society of Plas-
tics Engineers (United States), and Annual National Techni-
cal Conf., “Conf. Proc. - Process development for molding a
medical grade silicone elastomer via thermal analysis and
rheological approach”, Society of Plastics Engineers, Brook-
field, CT (2004).
[82] Hans Peter Wolf, Standard LSR Set New Standards, in:
Smithers Rapra Ltd, Shawbury (2013).
[83] B. Guzewicz C. Holben, Examining anisotropic properties of
liquid silicone rubber - ANTEC 2014: proceedings of the tech-
nical conference & exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 28, 2014
(2014).
[84] E. Haberstroh, C. Ronnewinkel, J. Polym. Eng. 2001, 21(2-3),
303. https://doi.org/10.1515/POLYENG.2001.21.2-3.303.
[85] M. Sahli, T. Barrière, X. Roizard, Polym. Test. 2020, 90,
106748.
[86] V. Seitz, K. Arzt, S. Mahnel, C. Rapp, S. Schwaminger, M.
Hoffstetter, E. Wintermantel, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2016,
66, 65.
[87] L. Picard, P. Phalip, E. Fleury, F. Ganachaud, Prog. Org. Coat.
2015, 80, 120.
[88] E. Haberstroh, C. Lettowsky, Eur. Rubber J. 2002, 184(2), 16.
[89] C. Baumgart, D. Weiß, V. Altstädt, Polym. Eng. Sci. 2016,
56, 849.
[90] J. M. Fischer, Handbook of Molded Part Shrinkage and Warp-
age, 2nd ed., Elsevier/William Andrew, Amsterdam 2013.
[91] E. Henze E. Haberstroh, Closed loop fuzzy control of part
weight in injection molding of liquid silicone rubber (LSR)
based on PVT-behavior, in: ANTEC, (1999).
[92] H. H. Winter, J. Rheol. 1986, 30, 367.
[93] T. Kruse, Real World LSR/Silicone CAE Simulation, Silicone
Elastomers 2011, Dec 6-7, 2011, Chicago, USA.
[94] G. Dlubek, U. De, J. Pionteck, N. Y. Arutyunov, M.
Edelmann, R. Krause-Rehberg, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2005,
206, 827.
[95] R. Han, L. Shi, M. Gupta, Polym. Eng. Sci. 2000, 40, 776.
[96] I. Manas-Zloczower, J. W. Blake, C. W. Macosko, Polym. Eng.
Sci. 1987, 27, 1229.
[97] L. Matysiak, X. Kornmann, P. Saj, R. Sekula, Adv. Polym.
Technol. 2013, 32, 258.
[98] J. Vang, S. Vallury, Advanced LSR Simulation Technologies
to Optimize the Design and Molding Process, LSR 2018, Sept
11-13, 2018, Anaheim, CA.
[99] A. I. Isayev, J. S. Deng, Rubber Chem. Technol. 1988, 61, 340.
[100] C. McConville, G. P. Andrews, T. P. Laverty, A. D. Woolfson,
R. K. Malcolm, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 116, 2320.
[101] S. K. Venkataraman, H. H. Winter, Rheol. Acta 1990, 29, 423.
BONT ET AL.
[102] M. R. Kamal, S. Sourour, Polym. Eng. Sci. 1973, 13, 59.
[103] H. Ou, M. Sahli, T. Barrière, J. C. Gelin, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2017, 92, 3871.
[104] A. Harkous, G. Colomines, N. Allanic, P. Mousseau, R.
Deterre, Key Eng. Mater. 2013, 554, 1634.
[105] A. Cosgrove, L. Lopez, J. Hernamez-Ortiz, C. Enrique,
Modeling the vulcanization process of high consistency rub-
ber and liquid silicone rubber, in: Society of Plastics Engi-
neers, (2004).
[106] J. P. Hernández-Ortiz, T. A. Osswald, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
2011, 119, 1864.
[107] I.-K. Hong, S. Lee, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2013, 19, 42.
[108] H. Ou, M. Sahli, T. Barriere, J. C. Gelin, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2017, 92, 4199.
[109] R. Vera-Graziano, F. Hernandez-Sanchez, J. V. Cauich-
Rodriguez, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1995, 55, 1317.
[110] R. Ziebell, R. D. Abbott, C. Windiate, D. Corning, Rubber
World 2014, 250(3), 22.
[111] R. Ziebell H. Bhogesra, LIM simulation modeling using
newly developed chemorheological methods, in: Akron, Ohio
(2016).
[112] J. M. Castro, C. W. Macosko, AIChE J. 1982, 28, 250.
[113] J.M. Castro C. Macosko, Kinetcs and rheology of typiical
polyurethane reaction injection molding systems, in: Society
of Plastics Engineers, (1980), pp. 434–438.
[114] M. M. Cross, J. Colloid Sci. 1965, 20, 417.
[115] J. M. Piau, N. El Kissi, B. Tremblay, J. Non-Newton. Fluid
Mech. 1988, 30, 197.
[116] M. Krenceski H. Zhang, Using Rheology to understand sili-
cone elastomers, in: Las Vegas, NV (2014).
[117] T. A. Osswald, J. P. Hernández, M. Hidalgo, N. Rudolph, K.
Sánchez, Viscoelastic Behavior of Liquid Silicone Rubber.
Silicone Elastomers, Dec 6-7, 2011, Chicago, USA.
[118] J. L. White, A. B. Metzner, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1963, 7, 1867.
347
[119] V. V. Severnyi, A. Ya. Tagirov, Int. Polym. Sci. Technol. 2005,
32, 28.
[120] D. M. Dattelbaum, J. D. Jensen, A. M. Schwendt, E. M.
Kober, M. W. Lewis, R. Menikoff, J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 122,
144903.
[121] ISO 17744:2004 Plastics determination of specific volume as
of unction of temperature and pressure - https://www.iso.
org/standard/33196.html.
[122] L. A. Utracki, T. Sedlacek, Rheol. Acta 2007, 46, 479.
[123] P. A. Rodgers, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1993, 48, 1061.
[124] D. Kazmer, Injection mold design engineering, Hanser;
Hanser Gardner, Munich: Cincinnati (2007).
[125] R. Freytag, J. A. Pérez Gil, R. Forstner, Mater. Sci. Forum
2015, 825, 677.
[126] Y. A. Fakhreddine, P. Zoller, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1990, 41,
1087.
[127] V. K. Sachdev, U. Yahsi, R. K. Jain, J. Polym. Sci. Part B
Polym. Phys. 1998, 36, 841.
[128] J. B. Hooper, D. Bedrov, G. D. Smith, B. Hanson, O. Borodin,
D. M. Dattelbaum, E. M. Kober, J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 130,
144904.
[129] A. Östergren, Prediction of residual stresses in injection
moulded parts, Master of Science in Applied Mechanics,
Chalmers University of Technology, 2013.
[130] SOLIDWORKS Plastics, Dassault Systems, (2019).
How to cite this article: Bont M, Barry C,
Johnston S. A review of liquid silicone rubber
injection molding: Process variables and process
modeling. Polym Eng Sci. 2021;61:331–347. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pen.25618