Views: 71457 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2026-06-26 Origin: Site
Output is one of the main indicators for judging the performance of an extruder screw. However, simply emphasizing the percentage increase in output of an improved screw over the original screw is of little significance, because the basis for comparison is often unclear. From hydrodynamic theory, we know that replacing an already worn screw with one having a smaller flight clearance will also lead to a considerable increase in output. To accurately reflect this aspect of screw performance, comparisons can generally be made based on the following four criteria.
1. Specific throughput (Q/n), i.e., comparing the output per unit screw speed for different screws under the precondition of acceptable quality. Since the actual output Q (kg/h) and the screw speed n (rpm) can both be measured, the specific throughput Q/n is easy to calculate. Its unit is (kg/h)/rpm, meaning the output per hour per screw revolution.
If the Q/n value is too low, then other comparisons become meaningless, because it indicates that either the screw design is unreasonable or the process operating conditions are unreasonable. For example, for a Φ65 extruder, a Q/n value below 0.24 is probably too low; for a Φ90 extruder, it is desirable for Q/n to be above 2, where Q is the output when extruding polyethylene with a die. Of course, these reference figures only apply to the current situation, and they will likely be exceeded in the future.
2. Conveying efficiency (η), which is the ratio of the actual output Q to the theoretical output Q₁.
η = Q / Q₁
The actual output can be measured, while many methods and formulas exist for calculating the theoretical output Q₁. Currently, a simplified theoretical formula is generally used:
Q₁ = F · π · D · ρ · n = 0.06 (S – b) H₃ (D – H₃) π · ρ · n (7-2)
The physical meaning of Eq. (7-2) is that the screw conveys one annular ring of plastic per revolution (Fig. 7-1). The mean diameter of this ring is D, and the cross-sectional area F = (S – b) H₃, where S, b, H₃ and D are the screw pitch, axial flight width, channel depth in the metering section, and screw diameter, respectively, all in cm; n is the screw speed in rpm; the theoretical output is in kg/h; and ρ is the melt density. The densities of several thermoplastics are shown in Table 7-1.
When the screw parameters and density are known, the denominator in the ratio becomes a constant, so the specific throughput Q/n is linked to the conveying efficiency η, and they are clearly in direct proportion. That is, a larger specific throughput inevitably means a higher conveying efficiency. Therefore, by measuring the specific throughput, we can indirectly compare the conveying efficiency.
For screw design, the concept of conveying efficiency is very important, as it reflects the overall performance of the screw extrusion system. According to experiments, under normal conditions, the conveying efficiency of a smooth-bore barrel ranges from 0.30 to 0.50. A value higher than 0.50 is unlikely, and a value below 0.30 is uneconomical.
It must be pointed out that when longitudinal rectangular grooves are cut into the barrel of the feed section and intensive cooling is applied, both the specific throughput and the conveying efficiency will be greatly improved. The working principle of such a system (IKV system) is different from that of a smooth-bore barrel system. The latter calculates the theoretical output based on hydrodynamic theory and therefore bases the calculation on the metering section; whereas the output of the former is determined by the feed section.
3. Maximum output (Qmax). The main goal pursued by a screw designer is to achieve the highest possible output while ensuring quality. When comparing the maximum output Qmax of two screws, Eq. (7-4) can be used to calculate the maximum output for each screw.
Qmax = 0.85 n_max (Q/n) (7-4)
Considering that the normal operating speed of an extruder is typically about 85% of the designed maximum speed, a coefficient of 0.85 is multiplied in Eq. (7-4).
4. "Stiffness" of the screw characteristic. The so-called "stiffness" of the screw characteristic refers to how much the output decreases as the die pressure increases. From Fig. 7-2, it can be seen that the characteristic of screw a is better than that of screw b. This means that when the die pressure rises, the output of screw a drops less.
Injection molding is fundamentally a process of balancing driving force (pressure) and resistance (cavity pressure). During injection, cavity resistance changes continuously as the melt fills the mold, meaning injection pressure is never constant—even at a fixed speed. The article compares two control approaches: variable closed-loop systems, where injection speed dominates and pressure adjusts automatically, and open-loop proportional valve systems, where pressure and speed must be set manually and interact with each other. It concludes that multi-stage pressure settings are valuable for protecting molds and ensuring stable production, particularly in multi-cavity applications.
This article examines the relationship between injection stroke and screw length-to-diameter (L/D) ratio in injection molding machines. Because the screw retracts during plasticization, a longer injection stroke reduces the effective L/D ratio, creating axial temperature gradients that cause inconsistent melt temperature and uneven part quality—especially in multi-cavity molds. Increasing the L/D ratio improves mixing and reduces axial temperature variation. The article recommends limiting injection stroke to approximately four times the diameter of the B screw and concludes that long-stroke, low-L/D designs suit single-cavity products with modest quality requirements, while constrained stroke and higher L/D ensure multi-cavity product consistency.
This article explains the differences between A, B, and C injection-molding screws, which are distinguished primarily by diameter and length-to-diameter ratio. A-type screws offer high pressure and excellent mixing for engineering materials and precision thin-walled parts; B-type screws are the versatile default for over 70% of general-purpose plastics; C-type screws provide high capacity for large, thick-walled components. Three selection rules are provided: keep shot size within 30%–70% of screw capacity, choose fine high-pressure screws for transparent parts, and specify wear-resistant alloys for fiber-reinforced materials.
Screw cleaning is critical to product quality in modified plastics production, yet often overlooked. This article analyzes four common cleaning methods for twin-screw extruders—resin cleaning, disassembly and manual cleaning, flame cleaning, and water-based cleaning—covering their operational principles, key process steps, precautions, and limitations. It provides practical guidance for selecting and combining cleaning methods based on material characteristics, equipment condition, quality requirements, and cost-effectiveness, while emphasizing standardized operations and regular maintenance to extend equipment service life.
For PVC plastic extrusion production lines, feeding method selection depends on material form and process requirements. Three common systems are compared: spring feeders (quick to clean, suitable for frequent color changes but poor with high-filler powders), screw feeders (high flow rate and anti-bridging, ideal for high-filler powders but not for fiber-reinforced materials), and vacuum feeders (dust-free and closed-loop, best for cleanrooms and fiber reinforcement but limited at high output).
Most screw breakages are caused by the reasons mentioned above. Regular inspection of the gearbox, ensuring adequate heating temperature, avoiding material interruptions, strictly following formulas, and preventing foreign objects in raw materials can effectively reduce the risk of screw breakage.
This article cautions against pursuing excessively short injection molding cycles (e.g., 2.8 seconds), outlining 20 improper high-speed practices and their consequences. It covers material degradation, gas entrapment, mold and machine component fatigue, hydraulic system damage, and mechanical failures, emphasizing that aggressive cycle reduction compromises part quality and equipment reliability rather than yielding genuine efficiency gains.