How Flexi Versa Group Helped an Electronics OEM Avoid Costly Tooling Rework

A mid-volume electronics OEM was preparing to manufacture a new wall-mounted networking gateway. The enclosure was almost ready for tooling, with steel scheduled to be cut in about six weeks.

During a final design review, however, several potential moulding problems were identified. If they were discovered only after the mould had been manufactured, the OEM could have faced tooling modifications, additional costs and a delay to its customer shipment schedule.

Flexi Versa Group was brought in to review the enclosure design before the tooling commitment was made.

The Challenge

The enclosure looked good in CAD and had also performed well as an SLA prototype. However, a 3D-printed prototype does not fully show how a part will behave during injection moulding.

Injection pressure, material flow, cooling, shrinkage and mould ejection can all affect the final part.

During the DFM review, Flexi Versa Group identified several areas that needed attention:

The important thing was that these issues were identified before the mould was made.

That gave the OEM an opportunity to make relatively small design changes rather than discovering the problems later, when changes would have been more expensive and time-consuming.

The Solution

Flexi Versa Group worked directly with the OEM's mechanical engineering team to address the issues.

1. Improving Wall Thickness

The internal rib and gusset arrangement was reviewed to make the enclosure more consistent from a moulding perspective.

The objective was to improve moulding performance without changing the external appearance that had already been approved.

2. Improving the Snap-Fits

The sharp corners around the snap-fit features were replaced with smoother radii, while the thickness around the tab roots was adjusted.

These relatively small changes helped reduce stress and the risk of cracking during assembly and repeated use.

3. Adjusting the EMI Cutouts

The EMI cutout pattern was moved slightly in relation to the mounting boss.

This restored additional material in the affected area while maintaining the intended shielding arrangement.

4. Improving Draft

Several vertical surfaces had very little draft.

The design was adjusted to provide more suitable draft for production moulding, helping the enclosure release from the mould more easily and reducing the possibility of surface damage.

5. Reviewing Material Flow

Gate locations and expected material flow were also reviewed.

The aim was to position potential weld lines away from important cosmetic and structural areas wherever possible.

Rather than making these changes one at a time, the recommendations were incorporated into one coordinated design revision for the OEM to review.

Working Directly With the OEM's Engineers

One of the key advantages of the project was the direct communication between the two engineering teams.

The OEM's mechanical engineer could discuss each concern directly with Flexi Versa Group's process engineer. The team reviewed the CAD model together, discussed the manufacturing implications and agreed on practical changes.

This also meant the OEM understood why each change was being recommended.

Instead of simply receiving a list of DFM comments, the engineering team could understand the possible consequences of leaving a particular feature unchanged and decide how best to address it.

Because the tooling steel had not yet been cut, the OEM still had the flexibility to make the necessary changes without having to modify a completed mould.

The Outcome

The revised enclosure design proceeded to tooling without a major change to the original programme schedule.

The first production samples showed good dimensional performance, while the main concerns around warping, ejection and snap-fit reliability had already been addressed during the design stage.

For the OEM, the biggest benefit was avoiding a potential tooling problem before it became a production problem.

By identifying the issues early, the company was able to keep the programme moving and protect its planned customer shipment date.

What Made the Difference?

The Bigger Lesson

For electronics enclosures, a design can look perfectly acceptable in CAD and perform well as a 3D-printed prototype but still present problems during injection moulding.

Wall thickness, ribs, snap-fits, draft angles, mounting bosses, gate locations and material flow all need to be considered before tooling begins.

A good DFM review is therefore more than a checklist. It gives the product designer and manufacturing engineer an opportunity to solve potential problems before they become expensive problems.

For electronics OEMs working to tight launch schedules, catching an issue before the mould is cut can make a significant difference to both cost and time.

Planning to put a new electronics enclosure into production? A DFM review before tooling can help identify potential problems while there is still time to fix them. Contact Flexi Versa Group at contact@flexiversa.com to discuss your project.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a DFM review?

DFM stands for Design for Manufacturability. It is an engineering review to make sure a product can be manufactured reliably and efficiently.

For injection-moulded enclosures, this can include checking wall thickness, ribs, draft angles, snap-fits, mounting features, gate locations and other details that can affect the moulding process.

Why isn't a 3D-printed prototype enough?

A 3D-printed prototype is useful for checking size, fit and general appearance. However, it does not reproduce the conditions of injection moulding.

Injection moulding involves material flow, pressure, cooling and shrinkage, which can create problems such as warping, sink marks or stress that may not appear on a printed prototype.

What are common injection-moulding problems with electronics enclosures?

Common issues include uneven wall thickness, insufficient draft, poorly designed ribs, weak snap-fits, sink marks around bosses and unsuitable gate or weld-line locations.

These problems are generally easier and less expensive to address during the design stage than after the mould has been manufactured.

When should an OEM carry out a DFM review?

Ideally, the DFM review should be completed before committing to tooling.

This gives the engineering team enough time to make changes without risking expensive mould modifications later.

Can DFM changes affect the appearance of an enclosure?

They do not necessarily have to.

Many DFM improvements involve internal features such as ribs, bosses, wall thickness and fillets. With proper engineering coordination, manufacturability can often be improved while maintaining the approved external design.

What should an OEM look for in a moulding partner?

Look for a partner that can do more than manufacture the mould and parts.

A capable partner should be able to review the design, identify potential manufacturing issues, explain the reasons behind its recommendations and work directly with the OEM's engineering team to resolve them before tooling begins.