Moxietec — The Future of Foam ← Back to NPE2027
Case study · Advanced foam injection molding

Foaming 50% glass-filled nylon 6.

Optimizing cell morphology and glass fiber distribution in one of the hardest materials to foam well — and coming out lighter, faster and tougher than the solid part.

28%
lower density
15%
shorter cycle time
Higher
impact energy absorbed than the solid baseline
The challenge

Glass fiber and foam fight each other.

Glass-reinforced nylon 6 is used wherever stiffness, strength and durability are non-negotiable. Foaming it is another matter — conventional approaches give uneven cells, poor fiber distribution and inconsistent mechanical performance.

Four things have to hold at once: uniform fiber distribution, a fine and consistent cell structure, mechanical performance at high density reduction, and stable processing.

The Moxietec solution

A formulation engineered for this material.

Moxietec developed a proprietary foaming additive package specifically for high-temperature processing of highly glass-filled PA6.

·Fine, homogeneous cell morphology
·Excellent glass fiber dispersion
·Stable processing at high density reduction
Results

A fine, uniform cell structure — with the fibers still where they should be.

SEM analysis confirmed an exceptionally fine and uniform cellular structure combined with excellent glass fiber distribution throughout the foamed part.

SEM of foamed PA6 GF50 showing fine, uniform cells
Fine, uniform cells across the section. SEM at 39×, WO-045 sample A. 1 mm scale.
SEM of foamed PA6 GF50 showing glass fibers dispersed through the foam
Glass fibers dispersed through the foam, not pushed aside. SEM at 39×, WO-045 sample B. 1 mm scale.
Structural consistency

An even cell structure means predictable behavior part to part.

Fewer stress concentrations

Localized stress risers are reduced, not moved somewhere else.

Dimensional stability

Improved over the solid part — a real problem in filled nylon.

Mechanical performance

28% less material. More impact energy absorbed.

This is the result that surprises people. Foaming normally costs you impact performance. Tested head to head against the solid baseline at matched impact conditions, the foamed part absorbed 28% more energy before total failure — and passed 39% less peak force through to whatever sits behind it.

For a structure carrying actuators, bearings or electronics, that second number matters as much as the first. The part takes the hit instead of transmitting it.

Dart impact
Solid
Foamed, 28% DR
Energy at total failure
2.66 J
3.42 J
Force at peak
8,857 N
5,367 N
Displacement at total
0.32 mm
0.80 mm
Instrumented dart impact, 5.671 kg at 1 m/s, 51 mm drop height. Same tool, same resin. Work order WO-045.
Key benefits
·Up to 28% weight reduction
·Approximately 15% shorter cycle time
·Fine, homogeneous cellular structure
·Excellent glass fiber dispersion
·Outstanding impact performance
·Improved dimensional stability
·Stable, robust processing

Your part, your resin, your numbers.

This was one part in one material. Tell us what you are molding today and we will tell you what foaming would — and would not — do for it.

Start the conversation → Run your numbers →