Bi-material design: DFM guidelines and best practices
Design a room two-tone (or bi-injection) cannot be improvised. Beyond the choice of polymers, the mould geometry, the parting line, the design of the bonding areas, and the injection strategy directly influence industrial feasibility and final cost. This DFM guide brings together the rules that our design office applies to two-component projects to ensure stable production runs.
This guide is supplementary to:
Compared to a classic single-material part, bi-material design introduces several specific constraints:
These constraints explain why the cost of two-component tooling is 1.5 to 2.5 times that of an equivalent single-material mould.
The interface is the point critique de toute pièce bi-matière. Depending on whether the materials adhere chemically or not, the design changes radically.
A flat surface is sufficient. Molecular adhesion occurs within the thickness of the interface. Recommendations:
The mechanical catch compensates. Several solutions:
| Solution | Application | Mechanical outfit |
|---|---|---|
| Single U-groove | Sealing joints, decorative borders | Moderate |
| Dovetail | Grip zones, soft-touch | Raised |
| Through bolts | Strong structural liaison | Very high |
| Undercut | Elastic deformation lock | Raised (reversible) |
| Rough texture at the interface | Supplement to another solution | Weak alone, additional |
Dovetail joint sizing Typical: top opening 2 mm, base 3 mm, depth 1.5 mm, undercut angle 15-30°. Spacing between 2 grooves: 5 to 10 mm depending on stress level.
A two-material part typically 2 sealing planes : one for the first injection, one for the second. Their positioning is crucial for:
Best practices:
The classic injection rules apply to each material, but with nuances specific to dual-material injection:
| Material | Minimum thickness | Recommended thickness | Maximum thickness |
|---|---|---|---|
| First material (rigid) | 1.0 mm | 1.5 to 3 mm | 4 mm (beyond: risk reassure"reassures) |
| Second subject (flexible) | 0.8 mm | 1.5 to 2.5 mm | 3 mm (beyond this: cycle slows down) |
| Interface area | 1.2 mm minimum combined | 2 mm of accumulated rainfall | — |
Thickness variation within the same material do not exceed ±30% over a short distance. Brutal variations create hot spots and sinkages.
Each thermoplastic its own shrinkage coefficient at Cooling. In a two-material component, the two shrinkages must be compatible, otherwise the part will be deformed.
| Family | Typical withdrawal | Bi-material risk |
|---|---|---|
| PP (homopolymer) | 1.5–2.5 1st–3rd | Raised if associated with low-shrinkage material |
| Nylon 6, Nylon 66 | 0.8–1.5 1Q–3Q | Moderate |
| ABS | 0.4–0.7 1Q–3Q | Low – good bi-material candidate |
| PC | 0.5–0.7 1Q–3Q | Weak — excellent bi-material candidate |
| POM | 1.8–2.2 Q1–Q3 | Raised alone, to compensate geometrically |
| TPE-V | 1.0 – 1.8 1Q–3Q | Designed to pair with the PP (compatible) |
| TPU | 0.5–1.5 % | Low – good bi-material candidate |
Rule of thumb withdrawal gap between the 2 materials < 0,5% for a precision part. Beyond that, plan for compensating reliefs (free deformation zones) or accept a final deformation that will need to be absorbed by sizing.
The choice of injection point (gate) for each subject is crucial:
Ejecting a two-component part requires more care:
Before realisation of a two-component mould (10 to 14 weeks lead time, €25 to €90k investment), a Rheological simulation is strongly recommended. Standard software (Moldflow, Moldex3D, Sigmasoft) allows for:
Cost of a two-material rheological simulation: Between €1,500 and €5,000 excl. VAT, for a potential gain of €20,000 to €50,000 on mould optimisation. This is one of the best investment/risk ratios in technical plastics engineering.
Are you currently designing a two-material part? Our design office can intervene in DFM review, rheological simulation or complete design. Request our expertise
Design for Manufacturability (DFM) in bi-injection is the set of design rules that enable the reliable, economical, and reproducible manufacturing of a two-material part. It covers material selection, interface geometry, thicknesses, draft angles, gate locations, and dimensional tolerances compatible with the process.
For rigid structural material, aim for 1.5 to 3 mm depending on the material (1.2 mm absolute minimum for PC, ABS, PA). For flexible material (TPE, TPU), favour 1 to 2 mm to ensure homogeneous filling. Avoid abrupt thickness variations between the two materials (ideal ratio less than 2:1) to limit thermal stress and cooling deformations.
Prioritise dovetail grooves (45-60° angle) or through-holes for retention. Provide a contact surface area of at least 4 times the thickness of the flexible material. Sharp edges increase retention but create stress concentrations; a minimum radius of 0.3 mm will soften them without compromising grip.
On rigid material, maintain a minimum of 0.5 to 1° (ideally 1.5°). On flexible material, allow 1 to 2° to facilitate demoulding without deformation. For textured surfaces, add 1° for every 0.025 mm of texture depth. Insufficient draft causes tearing of flexible material or marking of rigid material upon ejection.
The injection point for the rigid material should be placed on the thickest area of part A to ensure complete filling before solidification. The injection point for the flexible material should be kept away from the interface with material A (minimum 5-10 mm) to avoid displacement or deformation of the latter under the injection pressure of material B.
The usual achievable tolerances are DIN 16742 Standard (TG6) or Precision (TG5) for rigid material. Flexible material allows for more generous tolerances (TG7-TG8) due to its greater shrinkage. Critical areas (interfaces, functional fits) should preferably be positioned in the rigid material for dimensional stability.
The feasibility study typically costs between €3,000 and €10,000 ex. VAT, depending on complexity (materials, geometry, rheological simulation). This is an investment that is amortised from the first project: a design error on a two-material mould can cost €20,000 to €50,000 in modifications, therefore a rigorous DFM study beforehand is largely profitable.
Yes, it is very strongly recommended. The complexity of the flows, the temperatures at the interface between the two materials, and differential shrinkage cannot be anticipated by eye. A simulation costs between €1,500 and €5,000 excl. VAT but avoids mould modifications costing tens of thousands of euros. Hybster systematically carries out this simulation on critical bi-material projects.