Home/Case Studies

Three builds, described by the problem

Not a portfolio of photographs, but three tool builds written up the way an engineer would ask about them: what was going wrong, which route we chose, and what was different at the end.

Each case below states the problem, the decision that mattered, the schedule we committed to and the record set handed over. Customer names and part drawings are withheld; the process route, tooling type and stage timings are the ones we use on live orders. Where a figure is a typical range rather than a measured result, it is written as a range.

Automotive · 16-cavity hot runner

Making a bracket tool survive a four-year program

Problem. Interior brackets in PA6-GF30 were being molded on a two-plate tool with a cold runner. Cycle time was acceptable but glass-fibre wear on the gate area forced repeated rework, and there was no way to tell which cavity a suspect part had come from.

Route. We rebuilt the tool as a 16-cavity hot runner with hardened gate inserts and a cavity-numbered layout. Each cavity carries its own position number stamped at a non-cosmetic face, and the layout drawing is filed with the tool so the number means the same thing in three years.

Outcome. Gate-area maintenance moved from a recurring fix to a planned insert change. Dimensional results are reported per cavity, so a drift in one cavity is visible before it becomes a mixed-lot problem.

Tool: JC-IM-HR, 16 cav Build: 35–45 days Records: PPAP level 3, per-cavity CMM Detail page: Automotive tooling

Consumer electronics · bridge tool

Getting to a customer sample date without cutting production steel

Problem. An enclosure program needed real molded samples for a trade show eleven weeks out, but the industrial design was still moving and a hardened production tool would have been committed to geometry that was likely to change.

Route. We quoted an aluminium insert tool on a steel base, with the base and ejector layout designed for reuse. Two geometry revisions were included in the aluminium inserts. Once the design froze, the same base went back on the machine to take hardened production inserts.

Outcome. Samples arrived in the actual PC/ABS in time for the show. When the design froze, the production tool reused the base, layout and hot-runner interface instead of starting from zero.

Tool: JC-PT-AL → JC-IM-HR Build: 12–15 days samples, 35–45 days production Records: trial report, texture plaque, CMM per revision Detail page: Electronics tooling

Medical · low-volume machined body

Proving every lot of a fluid-path component

Problem. A pilot-build fluid-path component in 316L stainless needed lot traceability and a dimensional report per batch, but the volume did not justify a dedicated tool and the design was still under review.

Route. The part was machined on a 5-axis mill with a dedicated fixture and a written inspection plan. Each lot carries a number that links the material certificate, the process record and the CMM results. Bore roundness and sealing-face roughness are measured on every lot, not sampled.

Outcome. Every shipment arrives with a retrievable record set. When the design changed between lots, the change was recorded against the drawing revision rather than lost in email.

Route: JC-CN-M5, 5-axis Lot size: 50–500 pcs Records: lot traceability, per-lot CMM, material cert Detail page: Medical machining

What the three share

The pattern behind all three

Common decisions in the cases above
Decision	Why it mattered	Where it is explained
Choose the tool route before cutting steel	A tool built for the wrong phase of the program is rebuilt, not repaired	Prototype tooling
Agree the standard in writing first	Cosmetic or dimensional acceptance cannot be argued after the fact	Quality & inspection
Give every part an identity	Cavity or lot identity is what makes a record usable during a problem	Industries
State the schedule in stages	A single delivery date hides which stage is slipping	Mold making

Are these real customer projects?

These are representative builds based on the work we quote most often. Customer names, part numbers and drawings are withheld under confidentiality, but the process route, stage timings and record sets are the ones we actually use.

Can I see a similar part you have made?

On request, and with the original customer's permission we can show a comparable part with their identity removed. Photo references are shared during the enquiry rather than published openly.

Will you sign an NDA before I send drawings?

Yes. Send your NDA template or use ours; drawings are shared with the engineers on that job only and are not published in any form.

Describe your problem the way these are described

Tell us what is going wrong with the current tool or supplier. We will reply with the route we would take and what it costs.

Request a quote