Dimensional Stability After Molding: Part 1

Materials Know How

By: Michael Sepe from Michael P. Sepe LLC
From: Plastics Technology
Issue: January 2013
The degree to which molded parts shrink as they cool is largely dependent upon the composition
of the material being processed.
Everyone involved in plastics processing knows that molded parts shrink as they cool. The
degree to which this occurs is largely dependent upon the composition of the material being
processed. Semi-crystalline materials shrink more than amorphous ones, and fillers will reduce
the shrinkage rate of any particular polymer to a degree that depends upon the type and amount
of filler that is added.
Part geometry is also a contributing factorthin-walled parts shrink less than products with
thicker walls simply because they cool to an equilibrium state more quickly. Processing
conditions also have an influence on this behavior. Higher packing pressures will reduce the
level of shrinkage, and lower mold temperatures also have this effect, although in the case of
mold temperature the benefits may be only temporary.
One of the most difficult aspects of constructing a mold is determining the compound effects of
all these factors on the relationship between the tool dimensions and the size of the related part
features.
While everyone accepts shrinkage as a fact of life, there is somewhat less agreement regarding
the time frame required for a part to become dimensionally stable. This is of practical importance
since dimensional checks are part of first-article approval procedures, process-capability studies,
and ongoing quality checks during production runs.
Measurements made too early will provide bad data, but waiting longer than necessary creates
the risk that corrective actions made to a process that is out of specification will come too late.
Efforts to produce parts to print often make use of tools known as hot gauges. These are go/nogo devices that can be used to check a part that is still in the process of cooling and shrinking but
has reached a point where the final dimension can be accurately predicted based on an
established relationship between the dimension of the hot part and the final dimension of the
stable product.

The graph for this part shows that reaching a stable dimension takes 2 hr. This is
due to the fact that PBT is a semi-crystalline polymer, this particular grade contains
no fillers or reinforcements that can limit the shrinkage of the polymer, and the
nominal wall of this part is 0.250 in., so the cooling process is relatively slow.

Studying the process of shrinkage in any given part produces a relationship between size and
time that follows a function known as exponential decay. When plotted on a linear scale this
produces a graph such as shown above. The dimensions drop rapidly in the first few minutes and
the rate of change becomes slower as the part approaches equilibrium. Eventually, no further
changes are noted and the part is considered to be stable. A comparison of the controlling tool
dimension and the final size of the part will produce an actual value for the mold shrinkage.
It is an interesting exercise to compare this actual value with the published values for mold
shrinkage on the material data sheet. In the case of the part in the accompanying graph, the
material was an unfilled PBT with a published mold shrinkage value of 0.017-0.023 in./in. The
critical dimension on the part print is given as 4.941 + 0.008 in., and the actual mold shrinkage
value for a part molded to the nominal dimension is 0.02197 in./in.
The critical parameter in making a good prediction of the final part size is the time required for
the curve to flatten out. The graph for this part shows that the process of reaching a stable
dimension takes 2 hr. This is due to the fact that PBT is a semi-crystalline polymer, this particular
grade contains no fillers or reinforcements that can limit the shrinkage of the polymer, and the
nominal wall of this part is 0.250 in., so the cooling process is relatively slow. The cycle time for
this part is 60 sec, so if the part is running out of specification, waiting 2 hr before making a

correcting adjustment will cause the rejection of 120 parts. The ability to correlate the size of the
part at 15 to 20 min, when the curve has turned the corner, to that of the final part can save
hundreds or even thousands of rejected parts over the course of a year.
But is the time frame to complete shrinkage 2 hr for all parts and material types? As it turns out,
it is not. The actual time required to reach dimensional stability will depend upon all of the
factors mentioned above. For thin-walled parts molded in amorphous materials, the wait time
may be as little as 15 min and even parts with wall thickness of 0.125 to 0.140 in. will be stable
in half an hour. Most molded parts are stable within an hour. But there are maddening
exceptions.
First, part size is important. Mold shrinkage is a percentage of the as-molded dimension. A mold
shrinkage of 0.010 in./in. is equal to a 1% dimensional change. Often our judgment of stability is
indexed to what we can measure. If we are using tools that have a resolution down to 0.001 in.,
then a part with a critical dimension of 1 in. will appear to have reached a stable condition before
a part with a critical dimension of 20 in. simply because a last 0.001 in./in. change will barely be
detected in the smaller part and will likely be only a small percentage of the total print tolerance,
while in the larger part this same percentage change may equal the entire tolerance range.
Parts with very thick walls present some significant challenges simply because the time required
for the entire part to cool is extended. This is particularly problematic for unfilled semicrystalline materials, where shrinkage is related to the process of crystallization. Crystals are
well-ordered regions and consequently occupy less space than the amorphous regions. With
increasing degrees of crystallinity come increased levels of shrinkage.
If you want to get a feel for the magnitude of this relationship, refer to a data sheet for PEEK.
This polymer is slow to crystallize and therefore can be produced in either an amorphous or a
semi-crystalline structure depending upon the cooling rate. The density for amorphous PEEK is
1.26 g/cc while for the semi-crystalline variety it is 1.30 g/cc. This is a 3.2% difference and can
translate to as much as a 0.015 in./in. difference in shrinkage in all directions.
But even with a typical wall thickness there are semi-crystalline materials that do not seem to
follow the rules. Parts molded in these materials appear to keep changing for an extended period
of timedays, not hours. And while most of these changes involve the part becoming smaller,
there are instances where part size increases.

Dimensional Stability After MoldingPart 2

Materials Know How
By: Michael Sepe from Michael P. Sepe LLC
Issue: February 2013
After molding, acetal parts can continue to shrink at room temperature and even in the cold.

After molding, acetal parts can continue to shrink at room temperature and even in the cold.
(Photo: Ticona)
My first exposure to the prolonged shrinkage process exhibited by some materials came when I
was molding large parts in acetal homopolymer. Most of my experience with molding acetal
parts to close tolerances had come from producing small gears with diameters of no more than
half an inch.
However, our company landed a project that involved housings and quadrant gears with critical
dimensions in the range of 3.5 to 4 in. and print tolerances of 0.010 in. on parts with nominal

wall thicknesses of 0.110 in. One specific dimension governing the spacing of alignment holes
called for a specification of 4.046 0.010 in.
During initial sampling we produced parts with measurements that ranged from 4.038 to 4.042in. in a 30-piece capability study. Statistical process control (SPC) was a relatively new concept
in U.S. manufacturing at that point, so the fact that we were operating at one end of the tolerance
range did not particularly concern us. We were quite satisfied that the dimensional range was
tight and all the parts were to print.
But the parts had been measured about 90 minutes to two hours after they were produced. The
parts were room temperature to the touch and based on our experience with other semicrystalline materials we were satisfied that everything was fine. The next day the quality
assurance people pulled us into the lab to show us that half of the parts we had produced the day
before were too small to meet the print. A review of all 30 parts showed that they had all
continued to shrink and were now 0.004 in. smaller than the previous afternoon. In another day
they moved an additional 0.001 in. and then things seemed to settle down. Later I observed
similar problems with large parts produced in polypropylene, even in filled PP.
In order to understand what was happening it is important to appreciate the relationship between
mold shrinkage and crystallization in semi-crystalline materials. The more the material
crystallizes the more it shrinks. Optimal levels of crystallinity are desirable. Semi-crystalline
materials offer improved levels of fatigue and wear resistance compared with amorphous
polymers and they generally provide improved creep resistance at elevated temperatures. But if
the material is molded in a manner that prevents the development of crystallinity, these
properties are not realized at the intended levels.
The opportunity for crystallization exists in a temperature window below the melting point of the
polymer and above the glass-transition temperature (Tg). Processes like injection molding
involve rapid cooling of the polymer as it enters the mold. Even when running a material such as
PEEK, where the mold temperature may be 375 F (190 C), this represents a thermal shock to the
flowing polymer that enters the mold at 700 F (371 C). This rapid reduction in temperature is
needed to solidify the material so that the part can assume its intended shape. But as long as the
polymer remains at a temperature above its glass transition, about 295 F (146 C) for PEEK, there
will be sufficient mobility at a molecular level to allow the crystal structure to develop. Once the
temperature of the material drops below this point no more crystals can form.
So what happens with acetal and PP? I often hear people state that these materials do not follow
the rules. The rule they are referring to is that if the part feels like it is at room temperature then
it is dimensionally stable. In fact, these materials follow the rules precisely. The problem is that
the Tg of these materials is below room temperature. This is also true of polyethylene and
ethylene copolymers such as EVA. The Tg of PP can vary from about -10 C to +15 C (14 to 59
F) depending upon the grade. The Tg of acetals is -78 C (-109 F), or the temperature of dry ice.
This is a temperature only rarely experienced anywhere on our planet. So the chances are quite
good that wherever you might be using an acetal part, it is above its Tg. Room temperature is
100 C above the Tg of acetal. So as our molded parts sat in the quality lab overnight, they had
more than enough freedom at a molecular level to continue crystallizing.

A properly packed out acetal part produced at the correct mold temperature will exhibit
continued shrinkage of about 0.001 in./in. between the time the part reaches room temperature
and the time that it is truly stable. This value may increase if the nominal wall is very thick. For
small parts this change will be difficult to detect unless very precise measurements are made. But
in larger parts it becomes a significant factor. Even after the dimensions stop changing at a
measurable level, structural rearrangements continue to occur for weeks. Several years ago we
studied the tensile strength and modulus, impact resistance, and dynamic mechanical properties
of molded PP and acetal specimens over a period of five weeks after molding.
Properties were measured 48 hr after parts were produced, which is the ASTM guideline, and
then additional tests were performed at intervals of seven days out to 35 days after the molding
date. Tensile strength and modulus continued to rise over time, although the rate of increase
declined as the time extended. Impact performance became worse. Some materials that were
ductile two days after molding began to exhibit brittle behavior in 7 to 14 days. All of this was
the direct result of continued crystallization.
Most processors do not consider the effect of processing conditions such as mold temperature on
part performance. They are much more concerned with making parts that are to print. So when a
process produces parts that are undersized or on the low end of the tolerance range, processors
think in terms of making adjustments to correct this condition. The adjustment of choice is
almost always mold temperature. Reduce the mold temperature and the part will be larger. The
reason is simple: A lower mold temperature limits the ability of the polymer to crystallize. Fewer
crystals mean less shrinkage.
But in a material that has a Tg below room temperature, these gains may be temporary. In every
material there is an ideal spacing between molecules. The material knows what this spacing is
and given the opportunity it will do everything it can to achieve it. Suppressing crystallinity in a
material that possesses structural mobility at room temperature is a short-term strategy. This is
why the suppliers of acetal materials have been so insistent over the years on the importance of
mold temperature and proper packing to prevent something they call post-mold shrinkage.
It turns out that dimensional changes can also occur due to another mechanism that primarily
affects amorphous materials, a class of polymers that is considered to have the upper hand when
it comes to dimensional stability. However, these changes take much longer to unfold and they
are smaller in magnitude. But if you are really focused on very close tolerances and the parts are
large enough, these changes may still be of concern.

Dimensional Stability after MoldingPart 3

Materials Know How
By: Michael Sepe from Michael P. Sepe LLC
From:
Issue: March 2013

Plastics

Technology

Any process that involves melting and re-solidifying a polymer involves a compromise between
achieving the perfect structure and producing a part that can be sold at a price that the market is
willing to pay.

Physical aging can cause slow changes in amorphous polymer dimensions and properties after
molding. Stretch-blown bottles kept in a hot warehouse can suffer measurable loss of impact
strength in just a few weeks. (Photo: Sidel)
Amorphous polymers are generally considered to be a molders insurance policy against the
problems of dimensional stability.
Amorphous structures undergo a smaller and more predictable change in volume as they cool
from the melt to the solid, making them easier to mold to close tolerances. If you study the

shrinkage behavior of a part molded in an amorphous material, you will also find that the part
achieves stable dimensions in a shorter period of time. However, over time amorphous polymers
also undergo a slow and subtle structural change that can result in continued shrinkage. This
process is known as physical aging and it was not well understood in polymers until the 1970s.
Any process that involves melting and re-solidifying a polymer involves a compromise between
achieving the perfect structure and producing a part that can be sold at a price that the market is
willing to pay. Optimal structural stability is achieved by allowing the polymer chains in a
system to reach their ideal configuration in terms of spatial separation. In a semi-crystalline
material, as we have already discussed, this means attaining an optimal degree of crystallinity. In
amorphous polymers, where no significant level of crystallinity is obtained, the ultimate
objective is something called thermodynamic equilibrium. In both cases this involves allowing
the polymer chains to reach their ideal arrangement at the molecular level. This is typically
achieved by maintaining the material at an elevated temperature for a prolonged period.
Unfortunately, perfection requires too much time to be practical from an economic standpoint.
So the objective of good process control is to achieve a level of structural stability that is
adequate for applications in the real world. When a part is molded in an amorphous polymer, the
material has not reached thermodynamic equilibrium. It spends the rest of the life of the product
trying to get there. Physical aging can be thought of as the slow contraction of the polymer as the
chains get closer, collapsing into the excess free volume that remained when the part was first
produced. This closer approach produces a structure that is stronger and stiffer than the original
matrix, however it also loses toughness in the process.
The rate at which physical aging occurs is a function of the difference between the application
temperature and the glass-transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer. The closer the temperature
is to the Tg the more rapidly physical aging occurs. So it is not surprising, in retrospect, that one
of the first practical implications of physical aging was observed in an amorphous polymer with
a relatively low Tg, PET polyester.
The amorphous PET used to mold preforms and then blow beverage bottles has a Tg of about
172 F (78 C). At room temperature, the degree of physical aging needed to produce a measurable
change in mechanical properties can be as long as one to two years. However, when bottles were
stored in a warehouse at 120 F (49 C), this reduced the gap between the application temperature
and the Tg by about 50% and accelerated the rate of physical aging by approximately an order of
magnitude. Bottles stored under these conditions exhibited a measurable loss in impact strength
in just a few weeks.
Physical aging only occurs in what material scientists refer to as glasses, which are essentially
any amorphous material that exists as a solid. All commercial polymers, even semi-crystalline
ones like polyethylene and nylon, contain some amorphous regions and exhibit a corresponding
glass transition. Therefore, technically it is possible for semi-crystalline materials to undergo
physical aging and the associated changes in properties.
However, in most cases these changes are overshadowed by the contributions from the
crystalline phase. But some semi-crystalline materials achieve a relatively low level of

crystallinity that is highly dependent upon processing conditions. These tend to be the highperformance materials such as PEEK and PPS, where failure to cool the polymer at an
appropriate rate will result in an almost completely amorphous structure. In these materials
physical aging can occur and has been observed along with the associated property changes.
Because physical aging involves a change in volume, it can be detected as a change in
dimensions. This represents a relatively small dimensional change, as a percentage of the size of
the part, so detection either requires making very precise measurements or the part must be very
large so that this small percentage results in a readily measurable difference. Precise dimensions
are not demanded in a beverage bottle, but there are industries that make measurements in
microns. They have observed that parts molded in amorphous polymers with low glass-transition
temperatures, such as rigid PVC, continue to exhibit a very small degree of dimensional change
over a period of months. These changes are much smaller than the ones that occur due to the
solid-state crystallization that we discussed previously, but they can still result in a part that drifts
out of print over an extended period of time, even though the parts are only exposed to room
temperature.
This process can be slowed down if the parts are stored at sub-ambient temperatures, but it
cannot be stopped completely unless the temperature is lowered to the point where the polymer
undergoes another more subtle transition called the beta transition. For most polymers this
transition takes place at a very low temperature that would not be practical for part storage and
certainly will not be encountered in most application environments. For example, the beta
transition in PVC occurs near -58 F (-50 C) and in polycarbonate it is at -148 F (-100 C).
Up to this point, we have discussed long-term behavior that causes molded parts to become
smaller over time. But there are some long-term influences that actually cause parts to grow.

Dimensional Stability After Molding: Part 4

Materials Know How
By: Michael Sepe from Michael P. Sepe LLC
From:
Issue: April 2013

Plastics

Technology

In the first three parts of this series we focused on those influences that cause molded parts to get
smaller. But there are environmental factors that also cause parts to increase in size over time.
Up to this point our discussion of dimensional stability has focused on those influences that
cause parts to get smaller. But there are environmental factors that also cause parts to increase in
size over time. The best example of this is the dimensional growth that occurs when parts molded
in nylon absorb moisture from the atmosphere.
Many polymers are hygroscopic; they absorb water. Since water vapor is always present in the
atmosphere, this is the usual source of the water that becomes absorbed into the polymer. Most
hygroscopic materials under normal atmospheric conditions can absorb 0.1-0.2% water over an
extended period. But nylon, because it contains hydrogen bonding, attracts water to a much
greater degree. At room temperature in a normal environment where the relative humidity is in
the range of 35-65%, the equilibrium moisture content for an unfilled nylon will hover around
1.5-2% by weight. If continually immersed this can increase to 5-8%.
This level of moisture absorption changes the mechanical properties of the polymer. Many
designers and engineers complain that nylon parts lack toughness in the cold, dry winter months
when indoor humidity levels can drop to 5-10%, and this is why many processors will purposely
condition their nylon parts as they are being molded. It simply shortens the time frame required
for the part to reach equilibrium from weeks or even months to a couple of days.
Moisture absorption begins the moment the part leaves the mold. As molded, the moisture
content of the part is approximately equal to that of the pellets that went into the press. Since we
assume that all nylon is properly dried before molding, this would place the moisture content for
a part produced from unfilled nylon below 0.20% or 2000 ppm. This is what we refer to as dryas-molded. From that point, the process of going from 0.2% to 2.0% starts.
Water is a plasticizer for nylon. This means it reduces the materials glass-transition temperature.
For workhorse polymers nylon 6 and nylon 6/6, this takes the glass transition from 65-70 C
down to about 10 C. Water has the same hydrogen bonding as nylon; when water enters a nylon
part it has the same opportunity to become loosely attached to the nylon chain as does another
nylon chain.
When the water molecule becomes positioned in this way, it forces the spacing between the
polymer chains to increase. The greater the amount of moisture absorption the greater the

volumetric expansion. Someone measuring parts will view this as an increase in the size of the
part. Typically the increase in size can equal 0.5-0.6% in an unfilled nylon 6 or nylon 6/6 if the
exposure occurs at room temperature. If the temperature increases, the moisture absorption levels
will increase and the corresponding dimensional changes will become larger. Fillers and
reinforcements will reduce this dimensional change, however even a highly filled nylon molded
under optimal conditions will still expand by approximately 0.1% or 0.001 in. for every inch of
part dimension. This makes it important that the processor and the end user define the conditions
under which parts are to be measured for first-article approval.
While nylon represents the extreme where moisture absorption is involved, the vast majority of
polymers absorb water at some level. Materials such as polyethersulfone and polyetherimide can
absorb as much as 2% by weight over time. However, because these polymers are amorphous
and have extremely high glass-transition temperatures, the effect of this moisture absorption on
dimensions and properties is much smaller than it is in nylon. But as the environment becomes
more severe, even materials that are normally considered to be very dimensionally stable in
moisture-laden environments can produce surprising responses, particularly in situations where
close tolerances must be held in assemblies.
Acetal is often considered as an alternative to nylon that avoids the difficulties associated with
moisture absorption. The fact that acetal is rarely dried prior to processing reinforces this notion
that moisture uptake is not a concern. At room temperature and 50% relative humidity an unfilled
acetal will absorb only about 0.2% moisture and will expand by approximately 0.2%, effects that
are much less problematic than those encountered in nylon.
But acetal is a polar polymer and is capable of taking on larger amounts of water under the right
conditions. At 100% relative humidity the moisture absorption levels increase to almost 0.8%
and the dimensional growth increases to 0.7%. This behavior led to a significant problem with
the actuation of an acetal piston riding in the hole in a mating part. The tolerance stack up
between the piston and the hole ranged from 0.004 in. to 0.010 in. on a diameter of 0.600 in. At
room temperature the assembly functioned as intended.
However, validation testing involved prolonged exposure to a conditioning process at a
temperature of 85 C and a relative humidity of 95%. This allowed the acetal part to absorb
enough moisture allow it to grow by 0.004 in. Parts produced to the low end of the tolerance
provided for enough clearance between the two parts to allow for proper operation. But if the
parts were molded to the high side of the tolerance, the subsequent expansion due to moisture
gain was sufficient to cause the part to bind and resist movement.

Dimensional Stability after MoldingPart 5

Materials Know How
By: Michael Sepe from Michael P. Sepe LLC
From:
Issue: May 2013

Plastics

Technology

All materials possess a property called the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). The vast
majority of materials increase in size as their temperature increases and decrease in size as their
temperature declines.

One of 30 original copies of the worlds standard meter, made of platinum-iridium alloy, came to
the U.S. in 1890. (Photo: NIST Museum Collection)
At the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris, sits a bar made of 90% platinum
and 10% iridium with two marks engraved very precisely into it. The bar is stored under very
controlled conditions, and at 0 C the distance between the two marks represents one meter. For

more than 70 years this bar served as the worldwide standard for this fundamental unit of
measure in the SI system (International System of Units).
Why would so much effort go into defining a unit of length? The answer lies in part on a
property that all materials possess: the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). The vast majority
of materials increase in size as their temperature increases and decrease in size as their
temperature declines. For most metallic materials this value is approximately 10 x 10-6 m/moC.
For most unfilled polymers the number is approximately an order of magnitude greater or about
a tenth of a thousandth of an inch per inch per C change in temperature.
A story from the world of producing and measuring close-tolerance parts provides an illustration
of the importance of this property. In the first part of this series we reviewed a part molded from
unfilled PBT polyester. This part was essentially a cylinder approximately 5 in. high and closed
at the end at which it was gated. It had a critical depth dimension from the bottom flange to the
other end of the part of 4.941 +0.008 in. Maintaining this dimension was a challenge every time
the job ran, particularly since the nominal wall thickness was 0.250 in. and the part was not
dimensionally stable until 2 hr after it was molded.
This uncertainty was solved by creating the graph of the critical dimension vs. time discussed in
Part 1. But this part had presented a number of challenges over the years that always had us
looking over our shoulders for some unexpected calamity.
These parts went out for a machining operation and then came back to our plant for a final
inspection before being shipped to our customer. One day the parts came back from the
machinist and were dropped off on the dock. It was mid-January in Wisconsin and the outside
temperature was typical for that time of year: 10 F (-12 C), a full 35 C below room temperature.
Since the boxes were heavy, rather than haul the parts upstairs to the QC lab the quality person
took the depth micrometer down to the dock and began to perform a final inspection on this
critical dimension. Upon finding the parts to be undersized, he announced this with the singular
delight that only a QC person can display when delivering bad news to the production staff.
When I picked up a part to verify the measurement, I noticed that it was ice cold. I advised QC to
take the parts to the lab and allow them to come to room temperature before measuring them.
When they did, magically, the parts were to print again.
Looking at the properties of the PBT polyester in question, the behavior was predictable. With a
CTE of 0.000075 in./in.C, multiplied by a 35 C change in temperature and a length of nearly 5
in., the parts had moved almost 0.013 in., or almost the entire span of the print tolerance. This
illustrates the importance of measuring critical dimensions at standardized conditions.
Occasionally you may see a print that actually calls out a temperature range at which dimensions
are to be checked. This reflects an awareness of the importance of CTE to the size of the part, a
factor that escapes many. As with all of the other considerations we have been discussing, the
larger the part the more important this becomes.

This also relates to a lesson that was learned when we first began to perform SPC at the molding
machines in the early 1980s. The importance of checking and charting critical dimensions while
the parts were running was one of the big messages of SPC. So it made sense to put the
inspection tools right at the press, where the operator could check and input the dimensions and
observe the control charts as they developed. Some of the gauges were measuring critical
dimensions to the tenths of thousandths of an inch. When we would analyze the data for Cp and
Cpk values, we found disappointingly low process-capability results, even though the ranges for
any given set of samples taken at a particular time did not suggest that this should be the case. In
addition, when the parts collected for SPC over the course of a run were reviewed by the quality
people after the fact, the variation was much smaller.
This was initially attributed to the greater expertise that the QC people brought to the
measurement process and the fact that having a single person making all the measurements
reduced some of the aspects of gauge repeatability and reproducibility. But further investigation
showed that there was more to it. When the efforts to bring SPC to the production floor began,
the plant had not yet gone through the conversion to a climate-controlled environment. Anyone
who has worked in a molding plant without climate control knows that during the summer
months, even in Wisconsin, the temperature in the building can vary significantly, from relatively
cool conditions first thing in the morning to sweltering heat in early second shift.
Temperature gauges in the plant documented swings of as much as 50 F (28 C). When we
looked at our control charts we could see the waveform associated with these temperature
fluctuations superimposed onto the normal variation of our processes. Parts molded when the
plant was at its hottest did not shrink as much as the parts molded when it was cooler simply
because of the effects of the CTE. Not only did it make the process look less capable, it often
gave the impression of a trend that the technicians and quality people reacted to that was not
really there.
So in addition to all of the other considerations that we have discussed relating to dimensional
stability, we must add one more: Even parts that have become stable will still produce different
measurement results when checked under different environmental conditions. The CTE of the
material, the size of the part, and even the orientation of the polymer relative to the dimension
being checked, will all have an influence on the sensitivity of the measurements to the
temperature at which these measurements are made.