Quarterly Mags: 2010 1st

Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
FIRST QUARTER 2010
VOLUME 29 n NUMBER 1
Contents
Page 2
n
Departments
Chairman’s Corner x 2
The Business of Thermoforming x 8

Summary Report of the Plastics Processing Industry

Thermoforming and Sustainability x
26

4th European Bioplastics Conference

Stand Out from the Crowd
Front Cover

n
Features

Lead Technical Article x
4

Thermoforming of Low Viscosity Polymers

ANTEC 2009 x
10

Plug Materials for Thermoforming: The Effects of
Non-Isothermal Plug Contact
Pages 21-23
n
In This Issue
Council Summary x
16

7th European Thermoforming Conference x
21-23
Conference Registration x
24-25

A JOURNAL PUBLISHED EACH
CALENDAR QUARTER BY THE
THERMOFORMING DIVISION
OF THE SOCIETY OF
PLASTICS ENGINEERS

Editor

Conor Carlin

(617) 771-3321
cpcarlin@gmail.com
Sponsorships

Laura Pichon

(847) 829-8124
Fax (815) 678-4248
lpichon@extechplastics.com
Conference Coordinator

Gwen Mathis

(706) 235-9298
Fax (706) 295-4276
gmathis224@aol.com
Thermoforming Quarterly® is published
four times annually as an informational
and educational bulletin to
the members of the Society of Plastics
Engineers, Thermoforming Division,
and the thermoforming industry. The
name, “Thermoforming Quarterly®”
and its logotype, are registered trademarks
of the Thermoforming Division
of the Society of Plastics Engineers, Inc.
No part of this publication may be reproduced
in any form or by any means
without prior written permission of the
publisher, copyright holder. Opinions
of the authors are their own, and the
publishers cannot be held responsible
for opinions or representations of any
unsolicited material. Printed in the

U.S.A.
Thermoforming Quarterly® is registered
in the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (Registration no. 2,229,747).

Cover photo courtesy of
Getty Images
All Rights Reserved 2010
Thermoforming QUArTerLY 1

Thermoforming
Quarterly® Chairman’s Corner
Brian Ray Brian Ray
My two-year

term as Chairman of the
Thermoforming Division is
coming to a close. As I sit

back and reflect on the past 24

months, I am amazed at what

flashes through my mind. As

a division, as manufacturers
and as Americans, we have
endured one of the toughest
economic periods in the history
of the world. The recent global
recession is something that will
be remembered for generations
to come. In the same way
that older generations talk of
the Great Depression, the oil
embargo in the 1970s, and the
dot-com crash of the 1990s, I
too will tell my children about
the economic crisis that gripped
this country in the late 2000s.

Despite the turbulence of the
past two years, we were still
able to accomplish a fair amount
of work. We held a successful
thermoforming conference in

2008 in Minneapolis and made
a tough decision regarding
2009. Preparations for 2010 in
Milwaukee are now ramping
up. We continued to provide
scholarships for students and
matching grants for equipment
by universities. We maintained
our leadership position as the
go-to organization for all things
thermoforming. In addition,
we provided seed money for
the development of a technical
center at Penn College.
Successful collaboration with
SPI, Plastics News and the
European Thermoforming
Division resulted in a sharper
focus for the industry in a period
when the effects of globalization
continue to be felt. 2009 was
also the year that we hosted a
thermoforming pavilion at NPE

for the first time.

These tangible activities, and
numerous others, have kept
the thermoforming process
relevant and important to U.S.

manufacturing during difficult

times. However, perhaps
most critical to our success
are the individual efforts of
our members who continue to
showcase the process to ensure
that thermoforming can expand
into new markets in the years to
come.

Although the last two years

were filled with some difficult
decisions, they are also filled

with some very memorable
moments. I enjoyed a higher
level of interaction with fellow
board members. I am always
impressed with our volunteers;
to say that our board members

are selfless is an understatement.

With that said, I would like to
thank all the companies that
support board members and
allow them to attend meetings
and volunteer their time away

from the office and factories.

This employer support is pivotal
in ensuring a dynamic board that
both drives and supports this
industry.

I look forward to continuing
my involvement over the next
several years. I am excited about
the goals and objectives that
our new chairman – Ken Griep

– will bring to the organization.
I encourage everyone to mark
their calendars for the 2010
Conference: September 18th –
21st, 2010 in Milwaukee.
Thank you for your continued
support and I look forward to
seeing you in Milwaukee if not
sooner.

x

2 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Why Join?
®
Why Not?
It has never been more important to be a member
of your professional society than now, in the current
climate of change and volatility in the plastics
industry. Now, more than ever, the information you
access and the personal networks you create can and
will directly impact your future and your career.
Active membership in SPE – keeps you current, keeps
you informed, and keeps you connected.
The question really isn’t “why join?” but …
Thermoforming
Quarterly® New Members
Jan R. Acker
TriEnda LLC
Portage, WI
Matthew Banach
Grayslake, IL
Leslie Banduch
Onsrud Cutter LP
Libertyville, IL
Jason Blake
Eden Prairie, MN
Dave Bonadona
ITW Deltar Body & Interior
Business
Frankfort, IL
Raj Chauhan
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Richard Chin
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Cory Cramer
ITW Deltar Body & Interior
Business
Frankfort, IL
Jay Donaldson
AIA Plastics
Denver, CO
Craig Epps
Plastic Materials & Processes
Manhattan Beach, CA
Davis Foss
Fort Smith, AR
Brian Gansen
American Tool & Engineering, Inc.
Greene, IA
Don Greenwood
Greenwood Products
Berthoud, CO
Brian Hackett
Wilkinson Industries, Inc.
Fort Calhoun, NE
Matt Hancock
The Roho Group
Belleville, IL
Walter R. Harfmann
Darnel Inc.
Monroe, NC
David Hayford
Greenfield Pro
Alpharetta, GA
Doug Hodge
Plastics Design & Manufacturing
Centennial, CO
Peter Jasinski
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Niell Kelly
Cool Pak LLC
Oxnard, CA
Lothar Keune
Elstein-Werk GmbH & Co. KG
Northeim, Germany
Mike Keyser
Key Industrial Plastics Inc.
Sturgeon Bay, WI
Masaya Kosaka
Claremont, CA
Alfred Krahenbuhl
Plastics Fabricating & Supply Co.
Salt Lake City, UT
Giaia Ludwig
Tegrant Corporation Alloyd Brands
DeKalb, IL
Edward Scott
EverEdge IP Limited
Why Join?
®
Why Not?
It has never been more important to be a member
of your professional society than now, in the current
climate of change and volatility in the plastics
industry. Now, more than ever, the information you
access and the personal networks you create can and
will directly impact your future and your career.
Active membership in SPE – keeps you current, keeps
you informed, and keeps you connected.
The question really isn’t “why join?” but …
Thermoforming
Quarterly® New Members
Jan R. Acker
TriEnda LLC
Portage, WI
Matthew Banach
Grayslake, IL
Leslie Banduch
Onsrud Cutter LP
Libertyville, IL
Jason Blake
Eden Prairie, MN
Dave Bonadona
ITW Deltar Body & Interior
Business
Frankfort, IL
Raj Chauhan
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Richard Chin
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Cory Cramer
ITW Deltar Body & Interior
Business
Frankfort, IL
Jay Donaldson
AIA Plastics
Denver, CO
Craig Epps
Plastic Materials & Processes
Manhattan Beach, CA
Davis Foss
Fort Smith, AR
Brian Gansen
American Tool & Engineering, Inc.
Greene, IA
Don Greenwood
Greenwood Products
Berthoud, CO
Brian Hackett
Wilkinson Industries, Inc.
Fort Calhoun, NE
Matt Hancock
The Roho Group
Belleville, IL
Walter R. Harfmann
Darnel Inc.
Monroe, NC
David Hayford
Greenfield Pro
Alpharetta, GA
Doug Hodge
Plastics Design & Manufacturing
Centennial, CO
Peter Jasinski
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Niell Kelly
Cool Pak LLC
Oxnard, CA
Lothar Keune
Elstein-Werk GmbH & Co. KG
Northeim, Germany
Mike Keyser
Key Industrial Plastics Inc.
Sturgeon Bay, WI
Masaya Kosaka
Claremont, CA
Alfred Krahenbuhl
Plastics Fabricating & Supply Co.
Salt Lake City, UT
Giaia Ludwig
Tegrant Corporation Alloyd Brands
DeKalb, IL
Edward Scott
EverEdge IP Limited
Robert I. Mills
Gregstrom Corporation
Woburn, MA
Nicolas W. Neath
Chicago, IL
Robert Nesbit
University of South Florida
Wesley Chapel, FL
Peter Nora
P N Products Inc.
Scandia, MN
Michel Pelchat
Plastik M P
Richmond, QC, Canada
Lionel Pena
North Bergen, NJ
Gary Pettet
Enviro Systems Inc.
Seminole, OK
Michael A. Pohlman
Anchor Packaging
St. Louis, MO
Jim Pollard
Mullinix Packages Inc.
Fort Wayne, IN
Matt Quirke
Solo Cup Company
Lincolnshire, IL
Barry Ramsay
D8 Inc.
Potlach, ID
Auckland, New Zealand
Eric D. Short
Mytex Polymers
Jeffersonville, IN
Ron Skotleski, Jr.
Associated Packaging
Technologies
Chadds Ford, PA
Carson S. Stephens
Pittsburg State University
Pittsburg, KS
Eugene R. Sylva
Dimensional Merchandising Inc.
Wharton, NJ
Majid T. Tabrizi
University of Wisconsin –
Platteville
Platteville, WI
Dong Tian
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Lancaster, PA
Ray Tillotson
Terre Haute, IN
Steven G. Winuntsen
Plastic Ingenuity
Cross Plains, WI
Keith Woodward
CJK Manufacturingl LLC
Rochester, NY
Thermoforming QUArTerLY 3

Thermoforming
Quarterly®

Lead Technical Article

Thermoforming of Low Viscosity
Polymers

Dr. Majid Tabrizi, Chianeng Kong, Center for Plastics Processing Technology,
University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Introduction

Plastics processing is commonly classified on

the bases of processing techniques. The six most
common plastic processing techniques are: injection
molding, thermoforming, blow forming, extrusion,
compression and transfer molding. The development
and the selection of these processes, however, is
greatly affected by material condition, including
material viscosity.

An example of such consideration can be seen during
the thermoforming process when the sheet at the time

of processing must have sufficient viscosity to be held

and transferred to oven and into the forming press
by the clamp system. Materials with low viscosity
including liquids and low melting wax are historically
considered non-thermoformable. Hence, the selection
of materials that are highly affected by resin viscosity

is limited to material with sufficient viscosity at

room temperature as well as during the processing
condition.

Viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow. Liquids

have minimal viscosity. Waxes, solid materials at

room temperature do not exhibit sufficient viscosity

and melt strength during the heating cycle hence they
are considered non-thermoformable.

The goal of this investigation was to study the
possibilities of thermoforming low viscosity materials.
This study emphasized thermosetting liquid resin
mixed with reinforcing materials to produce a high
strength thermosetting composite.

Procedure

Thermoforming is a process of converting a thermo-plastic

sheet in to the configuration of mold. The thermoforming
process can include several configurations. Each has

different arrangements to accommodate the variation in
material thickness, processing condition, rate of output,
and part size. A common denominator for all of these
processes, however, is the heating of the plastic sheet

and the configuration of a cold mold.

The heating and cooling cycle of a chosen material is a

decisive factor in quality of the final product. This factor

is particularly crucial when the thermoforming material
is the combination of thermoplastics and thermosetting.
In processing the thermoplastic material, the plastic
sheet undergoes heating to the processing temperature.
The processing temperature is some way above the glass
transition temperature (Tg). The thermoformed part
must cool to the temperature below the Heat Distortion
Temperature (HDT).

During the processing of thermosetting materials, the
plastic must be heated to the processing temperature
and has been placed against or into the heated mold.
The heated plastic material will increase further in
temperature once it comes in contact with the heated
mold, and the exothermic chemical reaction occurs.
The plastic product is then removed from the mold

when sufficient cross linking takes place. The part

can be removed from the mold regardless of the part’s
temperature.

The following diagram on page 7 offers a comparison
of the thermoplastics and thermosetting materials heat
cycle.

4 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Figure 1. Heat cycle for thermoplastic and
thermosetting materials.

Material Selection

The goal of the investigation was to study the possibility
of thermoforming low viscosity plastic materials.

Specifically, the intention was to study the possibility

of thermoforming composite materials with polyester, a
liquid thermosetting resin with no noticeable viscosity.

The process utilized the cotton fiber as a reinforcing

material and PET to facilitate the process.

The polyester resin of different mixture and the
reinforcement were placed between two sheets of
0.020″ PET and placed in the clamp for thermoforming.
A thermoplastic sheet was selected due to the processing
condition. The process was affected by the curing time,

Table 1. Sample descriptions.

a process of converting the liquid resin into the solid
state by creating cross linking. The curing time was
effected by the ratio of catalyst to the matrix.

Insufficient amounts of catalysts do not cure the resin.
Too much of the catalyst leads to process difficulties

as well as excess heating causing the part deformation
and the reduction of certain properties.

The rationale for the selection of the mixing ratio
of resin and catalyst was based on manufacturer
suggestion. The manufacturers suggested 10 drops of

catalyst for each flow ounce of resin. The amount of
resin was changed from 1 oz. to 4 oz.

Process Preparation

A hydro-trim thermoformer equipped with a matched
mold was selected as a press. A set of aluminum
prototyping molds in the form of a 10″ diameter
frisbee (1″ deep). The processing parameters of PET
had been implemented, and the thermoformed samples

had been stored for 24 hours to achieve the completed

curing.

Testing

Dynatup impact testing has been used to examine the
quality of test samples. The test parameters and the
results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Test result of impact testing.

(continued on next page)

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 5

The Result

The visual inspection of the thermoformed test
sample has shown an acceptable level of physical and
adhesion properties. The sample showed the pleasant
appearance associated with the thermoplastics
outer layer combined with the rigidity of the inner
thermosetting plastics and an improvement in strength
associated with the reinforcing materials.

The impact strength of the samples has shown the
contribution of the PET layer in improving the shutter
resistance of the sample. The following graph depicts
the result of the impact strength for the test samples.

Figure 2. Photograph of samples after impact testing.

Figure 3. Graphic representation of the impact energy
for the test sample.

6 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Figure 3 represents the “energy to maximum,” total
energy (ft.-lb.) to the amount of epoxy resin used (oz.),
and the total number of catalyst drops for a sample.

Figure 4. Graphic representation of sample deflection
at the time of impact for test sample.

Figure 4 represents the deflection at maximum: LD

(inches) with the amount of polyester resin and the total
number of catalyst drops for a sample.

Figure 5. Maximum load for the samples.

Figure 5 represents the maximum load (ft.-lb.) of the
thermoformed test sample. The graph shows an increase
in impact strength for the sample with maximum
amounts of catalyst.

Figure 6, shown on page 7, represents the total time
(m.-sec.) necessary to fracture the samples. The graph
shows a noticeable increase in time for the sample with
the maximum level of catalyst.

Figure 6. Graphic representation of fracture time for the samples.

Conclusion

Thermoforming of low viscosity resin, such as polyester resin, is possible
when the thermoplastic sheets are used as supporting materials. The additional
reinforcing materials allowed for the production of a thermoforming structure
with physical appearance of thermoplastics, rigidity of thermosetting, and
the strength attributed to the reinforcing materials. x

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 7

Thermoforming

The Business of Thermoforming

Quarterly®

Summary Report of the
Plastics Processing Industry

Jeff Mengel, Plante & Moran

Thoughts on
Becoming a
Highly Successful
Company

Get back to basics – the best
companies have exquisite
alignment of their strategy,
organizational structure,
compensation and systems
(SOCS). Yet only 66 percent of
our respondents prepare strategic
plans. Now is a unique time to
re-invent your company as you
rebuild it from the aftermath of
the “Great Recession.”

Strategy is the heart of any
reinvention. Designing a value
proposition that is intriguing
(resonates with the customer, has
growth potential) and unique (not
easily imitated by competitors)
creates margin and demand.
With a strong value proposition
you have the ability to select
who you want as a customer.
Unfortunately, most companies
are pack rats that collect

customers without regard to fit

with the value proposition.

Organizational structure is

how you are designed to fulfill

your strategy. Companies with
weak or no strategies tend to

(Editor’s Note: The following article is an edited version of the recent comprehensive “Summary
Report of the Plastics Processing Industry” prepared by Plante & Moran, PLLC. This abbreviated
version is designed to provide thermoforming companies with a snapshot of the overall plastics
industry in which they operate. As with most industry-wide reports, injection molding provides
the basis for the majority of the data. However, the strategic and operational insights offered
are not unique to injection molders as the key performance indicators used by the authors are
also applicable to thermoformers. For further reading or to request a copy of the complete
report, contact Jeff Mengel at jeff.mengel@plantemoran.com.)

be designed for any contingency,
which sounds reasonable, but
creates unnecessary costs.

Companies organized around their
strategy will be leaner and more
streamlined. The company design
is also streamlined with consistent
equipment standards.

During this recession:

•
Strong companies used
their retained talent to
work at positions below
their former responsibility
to redesign more
productive processes.
•
Strong companies acquired
talent that enhanced their
strategy.
•
Strong companies
embraced flexible

automation for further
headcount reductions and
improved quality.

•
Strong companies acquired
equipment at auctions
to upgrade existing
equipment.
Compensation of the workforce
has undergone a substantial
change with reduced wages and

benefits as companies battled

reduced demand. An economic
recovery will create pressure
to restore the lost wages and

benefits. Increased use of variable

pay is one method to meet the
compensation expectations of
the employees while matching
pay with progress. Beware: you
get what you pay for. Variable
pay must be carefully crafted to
align with the strategy to avoid
gamesmanship and inconsistent
behavior.

Business operating systems used
to monitor performance must be
real-time and action-oriented.
However, too many business
operating systems are historical
in nature and do not provide
actionable information. Strong

companies have identified key

performance indicators that
align with the strategy and are
monitored regularly. Furthermore,
strong companies managed
manufacturing complexity

8
Thermoforming QUArTerLY

through properly aligned systems
versus through the efforts of

labor. Complexity creates traffic

jams that can be reduced with
coordinated and controlled
deployment.

Other observations of note:

•
Highly successful
companies are not large.
The technical niche they
exploit may be better
suited to a narrower
market. But rest assured
they are not thriving on
volume.
•
Highly successful
companies have more
working capital availability
– more cushion to address
capital investments and
daily operations.
•
Highly successful
companies are two
times more likely to be
component specialists
than the average molder/
processor.
•
Highly successful
companies may invest
heavily in new equipment,
but net equipment is still a
smaller percentage of total
assets than the average.
More of the successful
companies’ assets are in
receivables and inventory.
•
The highly successful
companies have average
utilization, but also aboveaverage
manufacturing
complexity, primarily due
to the number of active
molds required to match
their higher degree of
customer diversification.

It is necessary to have
available capacity to
manage complexity and the
vagaries of the customers’
demands.

•
Highly successful
companies use
predominately intermediate
and engineered resins, but
also purchase a higher
percentage of resins under
the customers’ P.O.s,
meaning they are not
rewarded/punished for
commodity risk.
Key Performance
Indicators

Value Added Per Employee

The concept of value-added
addresses what you convert within
your four walls, not what you buy

from the outside. It is difficult to

compare sales activity between
different organizations due to
the varying material content.
Value added per employee
eliminates this variable and
makes comparisons between
organizations more meaningful.
Companies with low value added
per employee should look to how
they are organized, as it typically
means you have too many people.

Lean Savings Percentage

The industry, by and large,
has poor acceptance of lean
manufacturing techniques (a
median inventory turnover of just

7.4 times). This allows companies
with the discipline and skills to

reap significant cost, capacity

and responsiveness advantages

over their competition. Larger
companies tend to adopt lean
principles more extensively and
also have higher savings as a
percentage of earnings.

Training Per Employee

You would never know that

labor is the most significant cost

beyond material based on how
little is invested in training and
retaining our workforce. The
appropriate level of training per
employee should be considered
as a strategic initiative, even
though there is no correlation
between higher training and

higher profits.

Delivery Percentage

While higher delivery
performance does not guarantee

you higher profits, lower

delivery performance guarantees
you higher costs and more upset
customers. A lower delivery
level generally means you incur
additional costs to expedite jobs,
are less responsive to schedule
changes and also have lower
inventory turns. x

Thermoforming Quarterly

invites thermoformers to
comment and contribute
their business perspective to
the magazine. If you would like
to submit a letter to the editor
or if you would like to write a
business article, contact
Conor Carlin, Editor, at
cpcarlin@gmail.com.

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 9

Thermoforming

ANTEC 2009

Quarterly®

Plug Materials for Thermoforming: The
Effects of Non-Isothermal Plug Contact

Peter J. Martin, Hui Leng Choo, Chin Yong Cheong, & Eileen Harkin-Jones, Thermoforming Research Group, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland

Abstract
Introduction
Figure 1. Stretching of polymer sheet during
thermoforming.
10 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Figure 3. (a) Open ring mold. (b) Polymer sheet frame.

Table 1. Table showing plug temperature used for the
different plug-sheet combinations.

Results and Discussion

(continued on next page)

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 11

12 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Figure 8. Wall thickness distribution of aPET sheets
formed by different plug materials at 100°C.

Figure 9. Comparison of the wall thickness distribution
of aPET sheets formed by Hytac-B1X at various plug
temperatures.

Figure 10. Wall thickness distribution of HIPS sheets
formed by different plug materials at room temperature.

Figure 11. Wall thickness distribution of HIPS sheets
formed by different plug materials at 87.5°C.

(continued on next page)

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 13

Acknowledgements
Figure 12. Comparison of the wall thickness distribution
of HIPS sheets formed by Hytac-B1X at various
temperatures.
Conclusions
References
Key Words
Thermoforming, Plug, Friction, Heat Transfer.
xVisittheSPEwebsiteatwww.4spe.orgAcknowledgements
Figure 12. Comparison of the wall thickness distribution
of HIPS sheets formed by Hytac-B1X at various
temperatures.
Conclusions
References
Key Words
Thermoforming, Plug, Friction, Heat Transfer.
xVisittheSPEwebsiteatwww.4spe.org
14 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

SAVE THE
DATE!!
MILWAUKEE,
WISCONSIN
SEPTEMBER
19th – 21st, 2010
SIGN UP TODAY
FOR EXHIBITOR
SPACE.
Contact
Gwen Mathis,
Conference
Coordinator,
at
gmathis224@aol.com,
706.235.9298 (ph), or
706.295.4276 (fx).
Thermoforming QUArTerLY 15

Roger Kipp
Councilor

COUNCIL SUMMARY
Council Communications

The Fall Council Meeting was held in Southbury, CT

on October 24, 2009. The following are highlights of

that meeting and prior Committee meetings I attended
while representing the Thermoforming Division

Communications Committee

•
The Communications Committee has
completed the criteria and format of the
Communications Excellence Award. This
award will replace the newsletter award
and is designed to encourage creative
communications beyond a newsletter and even
traditional websites. These could involve twoway
communication tools such as surveys, or
other web presence. The value of the award
will be the opportunity for sharing successful
communication tools among all Divisions
and Sections. A letter of introduction and
application has been distributed.
•
As Councilor, I encourage all Division
members to share your suggestions for
Communications success with our Chairman or
any Board member.
•
Communications within our Division, within
SPE, within the industry and throughout the
business community are all important to the
growth and success of themoforming.
Divisions Committee

•
There was discussion on a proposal to
provide support from the SPE Divisions and
Sections to fund a National College Student
Competition. Greg Campbell reported that
the Extrusion Division Board has agreed in
principle to take the lead and provide initial
seed money. The goal of the competition is
to get more recognition of polymers, plastics
processing and SPE at the student and faculty
level to a broad base of U.S. and Canadian
universities. I have a Power Point presentation
of the initial concept and will be pleased to
forward at your request.
•
A new Division in formation – the European
Medical Polymer Division – was approved.
Council Notes

•
The option of remote participation continued at
this meeting allowing Sections and Divisions
to be present from all corners of the world.
•
The Treasurer, Jim Griffing, provided the
financials reporting that through August, SPE
is posting a loss of just under $236,000.00.
This compares to the loss of $277,000.00 in

2008. However, the final revenue from ANTEC

is not included as SPI has a balance due to
SPE of $125,000.00. While expenses have
been reduced by $800,000.00 – revenue is
down one million dollars primarily due to lost
membership. The sale of the SPE Headquarters
was completed at $1,275,000.00 less fees. A
million dollars has been put in securities.

16 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

•
The budget was reviewed
and approved with the
following highlights:
–
Spending to be focused
on revenue generation.
–
Plastics Engineering
will break-even in 2010
thanks to the Wiley
agreement.
–
The budget revenue
assumes membership
of 15,000.
–
The new Corporate
Outreach Program
is budgeted for
$100,000.00 in revenue
and already has
$30,000.00 committed.
–
The rebate to Sections
and Divisions will be
the same as 2009.
•
There was a presentation
recommending the
downsizing of Council.
The objective was to
streamline the Council
format and increase
efficiency.

•
The plan would reduce the
Council members from
145 to 45. This would be
accomplished by creating
Sections in regions and
“grouping” Divisions
based on Division
membership. There would
still be regional meetings
and group meetings. Larger
Divisions would have a
greater Council voice. The

presentation proposed that
structure would establish
equity for Council
representation through
Division and Section size.
The proposal failed to
win support for further
consideration.

Staff Report

•
SPE must proceed with an
aggressive membership
campaign. Halt decline,
stabilize at 16,000 and
stimulate new growth with
a goal at 25,000 for 2011
year end.
•
There is a new pricing
strategy for new members
at $79.00 through a direct
mail campaign – new
programs for young
professionals, retired
past members and the
unemployed are in
planning.
•
Target markets outside of
the U.S.
•
Reaching out through
campaigns with Sections
and Divisions and the
acquisition of the PlastiVan
Program are continuing
action items.
These are highlights of many
hours of meetings. If you have
any questions or comments, I will
be pleased to discuss with you in
detail.

Roger Kipp
rkipp@

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 17

Visit Our
Website at:
www.thermoformingdivision.com
Our mission is
to facilitate the
advancement of
thermoforming
technologies
through
education,
application,
promotion and
research.
SPE National
Executive Director
Susan Oderwald
Direct Line: 203/740-5471
Fax: 203/775-8490
email: Seoderwald@4spe.org
Conference Coordinator
Gwen Mathis
6 S. Second Street, SE
Lindale, Georgia 30147
706/235-9298
Fax: 706/295-4276
email: gmathis224@aol.com
Visit Our
Website at:
www.thermoformingdivision.com
Our mission is
to facilitate the
advancement of
thermoforming
technologies
through
education,
application,
promotion and
research.
SPE National
Executive Director
Susan Oderwald
Direct Line: 203/740-5471
Fax: 203/775-8490
email: Seoderwald@4spe.org
Conference Coordinator
Gwen Mathis
6 S. Second Street, SE
Lindale, Georgia 30147
706/235-9298
Fax: 706/295-4276
email: gmathis224@aol.com
19th Annual Thermoforming Conference
September 18th – 21st, 2010
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Midwest Airlines
Convention Center
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Reservations Call 1-414-271-7250
Request the SPE Rate of $149.00
For More Information, Contact:
General Chair: Clarissa Schroeder
Invista S.a.r.l
864-579-5047
Clarissa.Schroeder@invista.com
Heavy Gauge Technical Chairman
Jay Waddell
Plastic Concepts & Innovations
843-971-7833
jwaddell@plasticoncepts@com
Roll Fed Technical Chairman
Mark Strahan
Global Thermoform Training, Inc.
754-224-7513
mark@global-tti.com
Parts Competition Chairman
Bret Joslyn
Joslyn Manufacturing
330-467-8111
bret@joslyn-mfg.com
Conference Coordinator
Gwen Mathis
SPE Thermoforming Division
706-235-9298
Fax 706-295-4276
gmathis224@aol.com
Check out our website at
www.thermoformingdivision.com
®
2010
“Embrace the Challenge”
HYTAC ®
Plug Assist Materials
info@cmtmaterials.com www.cmtmaterials.com
TEL (508) 226-3901 FAX (508) 226-3902
CMT MATERIALS,INC.
Innovative Tooling Materials for Thermoforming

18 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 19

Need help
with your

REDUCE! REUSE! RECYCLE!

technical school
or college
expenses?

I
I
f you or someone you
know is working towards a career
in the plastic industry, let the SPE
Thermoforming Division help support
those education goals.

Within this past year alone, our
organization has awarded multiple
scholarships! Get involved and take
advantage of available support from
your plastic industry!

Here is a partial list of schools
and colleges whose students have
benefited from the Thermoforming
Division Scholarship Program:

• UMASS Lowell
• San Jose State
• Pittsburg State
• Penn State Erie
• University of Wisconsin
• Michigan State
• Ferris State
• Madison Technical College
• Clemson University
• Illinois State
• Penn College
Start by completing the application
forms at www.thermoformingdivision.
com or at www.4spe.com. x

20 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 21

22 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 23

FIRST CALL FOR SPONSORS/EXHIBITORS
19th Annual Thermoforming Conference & Exhibition
September 18 21, 2010
FIRST CALL FOR SPONSORS/EXHIBITORS
19th Annual Thermoforming Conference & Exhibition
September 18 21, 2010
MIDWEST AIRLINES CONVENTION CENTER
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
2010

®
T
T
“Embrace the Challenge”

he 19th Annual Thermoforming Conference and Exhibition – Thermoforming 2010:
“Embrace the Challenge” – plans are beginning to take shape. This show will be a forum for
the newest techniques, latest equipment, materials, auxiliary equipment and current industry
news. As an Exhibitor, this event will enable you to showcase your products and services at a show
geared just to THERMOFORMERS! If your company is a player in the THERMOFORMING
INDUSTRY, then this is the place for you to be in 2010. This industry event is a prime opportunity

for you to reach the decision makers in the field and create a brighter future for your business as well.

Full exhibits will be offered. Our machinery section continues to grow each year. If you are not yet participating
in our machinery section, you are encouraged to do so. Each 10′ x 10′ booth is fully piped, draped, carpeted
and a sign will be provided. As an extra value, one comp full registration is included with every booth sold.
This gives your attendees access to all Technical Sessions, Workshops, Special Events, Expert Panel
Discussions and all meals. A great bargain at $2,250.00.

We are also offering our sponsors and exhibitors a forum to present their newest innovations through
presentations at our newly introduced commercial sessions. Your SPONSORSHIP or participation as an
EXHIBITOR has demonstrated its potential to help your sales and it is contributing to the strength and
success of our industry as a whole.

We urge you to join us at THERMOFORMING 2010 in Milwaukee! Reserve your space early to avoid

disappointment. Booth assignments and commerciaal presentation opportunities are made on a first come,
first serve basis.

Should you have questions, please call (706) 235-9298, fax (706) 295-4276
or e-mail to gmathis224@aol.com.

24 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

2010 THERMOFORMING CONFERENCE
September 18 – 21, 2010
2010 THERMOFORMING CONFERENCE
September 18 – 21, 2010
SPONSOR & EXHIBITOR REGISTRATION FORM
(Please complete and return with your check today )
_______
YES, we want to apply as a 2010 Thermoforming Conference SPONSOR. Enclosed
is our non-refundable deposit check for $2,500. We understand that if our firm is
selected through a “Sponsor Lottery” we will have 14 days after notification to submit
our payment of the additional $2,500 to confirm our Sponsor status. Those firms not
meeting this deadline will relinquish their sponsor position and will be reclassified
as an EXHIBITOR. Additional spaces available at discounted rates. 2nd Booth $2,250,
3rd Booth $2,000, 4 or more, $1,750 each.

WE WILL REQUIRE __________ Booths.
Initial Sponsor Cost … $5,000 – Signup Deadline: December 1, 2009.

_______
YES, we want to be a 2010 THERMOFORMING EXHIBITOR. Enclosed is our check
for $2,250. Additional 10′ x 10′ booths as needed will be 2nd $2,000, 3 or more $1,750
each. We will require _________ Booths. We understand that space assignments will
be assigned after SPONSORS have been selected. Cancellations will be accepted up
to June 1, 2010.

COMPANY NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTACT: _______________________________________________ SIGNATURE: _________________________________________

ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY/STATE/ZIP: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

PHONE: ____________________________________ FAX: ________________________________

E-MAIL:___________________________________________________________________________

You get one (1) FULL COMP REGISTRATION for each 10′ x 10′ booth space. Please list the person who will be using your
comp registration (subject to change):

MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:

2010 SPE THERMOFORMING CONFERENCE

MAIL TO:

GWEN MATHIS, CONFERENCE COORDINATOR
SPE THERMOFORMING DIVISION

P. O. BOX 471, 6 SOUTH SECOND STREET, SE
LINDALE, GEORGIA 30147
FAX (706) 295-4276
Please inform us if
you wish to pay by
credit card and we
will arrange for the
transaction with SPE.
E-mail to
gmathis224@aol.com.

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 25

Thermoforming
Quarterly®

Thermoforming and Sustainability

4th European Bioplastics Conference

10/11 November 2009, Berlin, Germany

T
T
he 4th industry conference
on bioplastics took place in
Berlin on the 10th and 11th of
November 2009. Despite the difficult
financial situation, the event
set a new visitor record: 380 visitors
and 27 exhibitors attended
the conference hosted by the European
Bioplastics Association.
Experts still expect continued
growth in the field of compostable
and biobased materials. “Where
will the industry be in five years’
time?,” “What are the trends?,”
“Which materials will dominate
the market?,” “How can we communicate
the advantages for the
environment and what are the optimum
utilization fields for bioplastics?”
Twenty-eight speakers and
380 participants dealt with these
and other questions during the
two-day bioplastics conference in
Berlin. Altogether 237 companies
from 27 countries attended the
event. Approximately 78 percent
came from Europe, 16 percent
from Asia, and over five percent
from North and South America.
The European Bioplastics Conference
is now in its fourth year
and has become an established
industry event. “To have broken
attendance records, in spite of the
difficult economic background, is
extremely heartening. Market interest
and uptake is very real and

(Editor’s Note: The production capacity of bio-based plastics is projected to increase from
360,000 tons in 2007 to approximately 2.3 million tons by 2013, representing 37% annual
growth. A recently published European study shows that up to 90% of the current global
consumption of polymers can technically be converted from oil and gas to renewable raw
materials. This conference report is an abbreviated version of a longer version provided by
the communications department of European Bioplastics. It appears in Thermoforming QuarTerly
thanks to the kind permission of European Bioplastics.)

bioplastics producers continue to
increase both capacity and the technical
capability of their materials,”
cheers Andy Sweetman, Chairman
of the Board of European Bioplastics.

The boundaries
between ‘bio’ and
‘fossil’ are blurred

Those who think that the plastics
industry will split into a “bio” and
a “fossil camp” will probably be
quite wrong. On the other hand,
those who think that plastics could
become much more sustainable by
reverting more and more to renewable
resources are right indeed. A
significant example of the possibilities
in this context is currently provided
by one of the most famous
brands in the world, Coca-Cola. Its
“Plant Bottle,” of which two billion
pieces are supposed to be produced
next year for beverages, has a sugar
share of up to 30%. The principle:
take a polymer component – in
this case PET – which can be derived
from renewable resources,
to replace a fossil component. The
multi-million ton chemical compo

nent ethylene can be obtained from
bio-ethanol. This can be added to
very different polymers as “biobased
element.” Using the example
of Coca-Cola, bio-based ethylene

is chemically modified to ethylene

glycol, a monomer and component
of PET. Coca-Cola has already de

fined a future strategy for itself:

increasing the share of renewable
resources step by step. 100% is the
ultimate goal, just like increased
utilization of non-food biomass and

recycled materials. Making the first

step and keeping a clear focus on
your goal – that’s the way to work
in the world of bioplastics.

The plastics industry owes its
success to an enormous degree

of flexibility and the power of

optimisation. No other material
can even hope to keep up with
the growth in the plastics market.
One essential reason for this is
that the components provided by
chemistry are processed into an
entire spectrum of polymers with
the most varied functionality and
optimum application properties.
Now that fossil raw materials
are becoming more and more

26 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

expensive, and the dreaded climate
change can only be combated by
saving fossil carbon, the building
blocks required for polymers
can increasingly be derived from
renewable raw materials. Whether
bioethanol/-ethylene, lactic acid or
succinic acid, this approach will
not remain an idea; it is becoming
reality. No less than four companies

– BASF-CSM, Bioamber, DSM-
Roquette, and Mitsubishi Chemicals
– announced plans to produce
succinic acid from biomass using
biotechnological fermentation
methods. This C4 component is a

suitable base product for numerous
polymers and can be applied

directly or chemically modified.

Mixing biobased with fossil monomers
to yield “new” polymers is
a trend. The goal is, as numerous
speakers and participants agreed,
greater sustainability. This is not
about completely eliminating fossil
polymers or polymer components,
which would, after all, also
be illusory in the medium term. A
20% biobased carbon share may
represent a giant step in the right
direction away from purely fossil
materials. According to a recently
published study by the University
of Utrecht, it is theoretically possible
to produce 90% of all polymers
from renewable resources. The Brazilian
company Braskem will write
a new chapter in polymer history as

the first world scale manufacturer

of biobased PE from sugar cane.
Despite enormous investments and

the financial crisis, the company is

on course to start production in the
coming year, as communicated at
the conference.

How to become
more sustainable

Those who still think that they cannot
afford more sustainability these
days should have a closer look at
the issue. Coca-Cola is not exactly
known for wasting its resources on
“green spleens,” and nor is ALDI.
The discounter, who has perhaps
changed the shopping world
more than any other retail chain in
many European countries, is now
also opting for compostable and
biobased carrier bags. No margin is
sacrificed, and there are no subsidies.
The supplier, Viktor Güthoff
& Partner, now sees good chances
that other retail chains will follow
this example. The Italian company
UNICOOP Firenze also reported
good results with compostable carrier
bags made of Mater-Bi this
year at the conference. All innovators
are familiar with the eternal
discussion about costs and prices.
However, it is still possible to “buy
and sell” higher value materials if
the product and the philosophy are
coherent.

Coca-Cola spokesman Cees van
Dongen answered the question
of a participant as to what extent
the company would be willing
to pay a surcharge for the more
expensive bioplastics by saying
that Coca-Cola could NOT
afford to NOT offer such products
as they are desired by more and
more consumers. Apparently there
is not much difference between

novel flat screens and bioplastics:

those convinced of the success in
the market will invest.

The development of bioplastics
is still in the starting phase.
The results of eco-balances may
be strongly distorted by the low
degree of optimisation and the
often still very small number
of producers. If questionable
and partial results are taken out
of their context and published,
this may easily lead to a wrong
image. Wrong handling may even
turn eco-balances into innovation
inhibitors. Despite all this: they
are helpful to improve individual
processes and help companies to
focus on optimising their potential.

What about
the political
dimension?

While the use of agricultural
feedstocks for energy or biofuel

production benefits from a strong

political and legal framework,
the material use is still practically
without any support these days.
It is an undisputed strength of
the bioplastics industry that it
is successfully advancing the
marketing of its products in
Europe despite partially obstructive
framework conditions.
It is also clear that positive
regulations do not only improve

the difficult competitive position,

but can also help to remove

obstacles, e.g. in the field of waste

management and utilisation.
Peter Schintlmeister, Chairman
of the ad-hoc Advisory Group for
the EU Lead Market Initiative
on Bio-based Products, also

(continued on next page)

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 27

confirmed in his speech: The

European Commission sees great
potential in the market for biobased
products, which is still below its
full performance at present. The
lead markets initiative is designed
to contribute to raising the potential
and competitiveness of biobased
materials.” Not just at a EU level,
but also at member state level,
innovative, biobased products
like bioplastics are increasingly
moving into central focus. In
Germany, the Biomass Action
Plan For Industrial Uses also
pursues similar aims; in France
the environmental protection law
“Grenelle de l’Environnement.”
Countries with a policy that is
strongly focused on ecology like
the Netherlands or Germany
have already passed laws to this
respect. There are discussions
in the industry and in politics
as to which measures would be
desirable and which ones are not.
“What helps us as an industry in
the short term, and is undisputed,
is the promotion of the transfer of
information,” summarises Kaeb.
“We have to communicate our
standards and labels.” There is still
a lack of knowledge on all levels
when it comes to bioplastics.

Time for Change

Almost everything points to the
fact that bioplastics will continue

the difficult yet successful path of

all innovations. Most participants
at the conference agreed with
that. The industry, which is still

young after all, profits from

growing competition, new ideas
and more players. It orients itself

on sustainability aims, but should
not be hindered by excessive short-
term expectations during its strive
for optimisation. Public funding
and a suitable legal framework are
desirable, but the measures should
not trigger negative side effects.
Uncertainty and unawareness slow
down market development. This is
why information transfer between
all involved target groups is key to
success. No one will deny to what
extent the Internet has changed our

individual lives and the economy.
Information, advertising, business
communication, our leisure time
and shopping behaviour – all this is
shaped “online,” and increasingly
lived or paid there as well. The
process is more subdued as we
might have thought at the beginning,
but there is no stopping it anymore.
Bioplastics will not revolutionize
the world of materials in the shortterm,
but they have already started
to change it. x

28 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

2010
EDITORIAL
CALENDAR

Quarterly Deadlines for

Copy and Sponsorships

ALL FINAL COPY FOR
EDITORIAL APPROVAL

30-JAN Spring 15-APR Summer

31-JUL Fall 30-OCT Winter

Post-Conference Edition

All artwork to be sent in .eps
or .jpg format with minimum
300dpi resolution.

Become a
Thermoforming
Quarterly Sponsor
in 2010!

Do you like the
new look?

Additional sponsorship
opportunities will include
4-color, full page, and
1/2 page.

RESERVE YOUR PRIME
SPONSORSHIP
SPACE TODAY.

Questions? Call or email
Laura Pichon
Ex-Tech Plastics
847-829-8124
Lpichon@extechplastics.com

BOOK SPACE
IN 2010!

Thermoforming QUArTerLY 29

Executive
Committee

2008 – 2010

CHAIR

Brian Ray
Ray Products
1700 Chablis Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-9906, Ext. 216
Fax (909) 390-9984
brianr@rayplastics.com

CHAIR ELECT

Ken Griep
Portage Casting & Mold
2901 Portage Road
Portage, WI 53901
(608) 742-7137
Fax (608) 742-2199
ken@pcmwi.com

TREASURER

James Alongi
Maac Machinery
590 Tower Blvd.
Carol Stream, IL 60188
(630) 665-1700
Fax (630) 665-7799
jalongi@maacmachinery.com

SECRETARY

Mike Sirotnak
Solar Products
228 Wanaque Avenue
Pompton Lakes, NJ 07442
(973) 248-9370
Fax (973) 835-7856
msirotnak@solarproducts.com

COUNCILOR WITH TERM
ENDING ANTEC 2009

Roger Kipp
McClarin Plastics
P. O. Box 486, 15 Industrial Drive
Hanover, PA 17331
(717) 637-2241 x4003
Fax (717) 637-4811
rkipp@mcclarinplastics.com

PRIOR CHAIR

Walt Walker
Prent Corporation
P. O. Box 471, 2225 Kennedy Road
Janesville, WI 53547-0471
(608) 754-0276 x4410
Fax (608) 754-2410
wwalker@prent.com

2008 – 2010 THERMOFORMING DIVISION ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

UPCOMING
CONFERENCES
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
SEPTEMBER 19 – 21, 2010
SCHAUMBURG, ILLINOIS
SEPTEMBER 17 – 20, 2011
Chair
Brian Ray
Chair Elect
Ken Griep
Finance
Bob Porsche
Technical Committees
Processing
Walt Speck
Materials
Jim Armor
Machinery
Don Kruschke
Secretary
Mike Sirotnak
Nominating
Dennis Northrop
Publications /
Advertising
Laura Pichon
Newsletter Editor
Conor Carlin
Technical Editor
Barry Shepherd
OPCOM
Lola Carere
Treasurer
James Alongi
AARC
Rich Freeman
Student Programs
Ken Griep
Councilor
Roger Kipp
Prior Chair
Walt Walker
2008 Conference
Minneapolis
Dennis Northrop
Antec
Don Hylton
Membership
Haydn Forward
Marketing
Don Kruschke
Recognition
Hal Gilham
Web Site
Rich Freeman
Green Committee
Steve Hasselbach
Conference Coordinator
Consultant
Gwen Mathis
2010 Conference
Milwaukee
Clarissa Schroeder
2011 Conference
Schaumburg
James Alongi
30 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Board of Directors
MACHINERY
COMMITTEE
James Alongi
Maac Machinery
590 Tower Blvd
Carol Stream, IL 60188
T: 630 665 1700
F: 630 665 7799
jalongi@maacmachinery com
Roger Fox
The Foxmor Group
373 S Country Farm Road
Suite 202
Wheaton, IL 60187
T: 630 653 2200
F: 630 653 1474
rfox@foxmor com
Hal Gilham
Productive Plastics, Inc
103 West Park Drive
Mt Laurel, NJ 08045
T: 856 778 4300
F: 856 234 3310
halg@productiveplastics com
Bill Kent
Brown Machine
330 North Ross Street
Beaverton, MI 48612
T: 989 435 7741
F: 989 435 2821
bill kent@brown-machine com
Don Kruschke (Chair)
Thermoforming Machinery
Equipment (TME)
31875 Solon Road
Solon, OH 44139
T: 440 498 4000
F: 440 498 4001
donk440@gmail com
Brian Winton
Modern Machinery
PO Box 423
Beaverton, MI 48612
T: 989 435 9071
F: 989 435 3940
bwinton@modernmachineinc com
MATERIALS
COMMITTEE
Jim Armor (Chair)
Armor & Associates
16181 Santa Barbara Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
T: 714 846 7000
F: 714 846 7001
jimarmor@aol com
Phil Barhouse
Spartech Packaging
Technologies
100 Creative Way
PO Box 128
Ripon, WI 54971
T: 920 748 1119
F: 920 748 9466
phil barhouse@spartech com
Donald Hylton
McConnell Company
646 Holyfield Highway
Fairburn, GA 30213
T: 678 772 5008
don@thermoforming com
Bill McConnell
McConnell Company
PO Box 11512
4216 Lanark Avenue
Fort Worth, TX 76109
T: 972 805 1787
F: 817 668 9022
C: 817 233 9620
billmc@thermoforming com
Dennis Northrop
Soliant, LLC
1872 Highway 9 Bypass West
Lancaster, SC 29720
T: 803 287 5535
dnorthrop@paintfilm com
Laura Pichon
Ex-Tech Plastics
PO Box 576
11413 Burlington Road
Richmond, IL 60071
T: 847 829 8124
F: 815 678 4248
lpichon@extechplastics com
Clarissa Schroeder
Invista S A R L
1550 Dewberry Road
Spartanburg, SC 29307
T: 864 579 5047
F: 864 579 5288
Clarissa Schroeder@invista com
Robert G Porsche
General Plastics
2609 West Mill Road
Milwaukee, WI 53209
T: 414 351 1000
F: 414 351 1284
bob@genplas com
Barry Shepherd
Shepherd Thermoforming
5 Abacus Way
Brampton, ONT L6T 5B7
T: 905 459 4545
F: 905 459 6746
bshep@shepherd ca
Walt Speck (Chair)
Speck Plastics, Inc
PO Box 421
Nazareth, PA 18064
T: 610 759 1807
F: 610 759 3916
wspeck@speckplastics com
Jay Waddell
Plastics Concepts & Innovations
1127 Queensborough Road
Suite 102
Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
T: 843 971 7833
F: 843 216 6151
jwaddell@plasticoncepts com
PROCESSING
COMMITTEE
Art Buckel
McConnell Company
3452 Bayonne Drive
San Diego, CA 92109
T: 858 273 9620
F: 858 273 6837
artbuckel@thermoforming com
Lola Carere
Thermopro
1600 Cross Point Way
Suite D
Duluth, GA 30097
T: 678 957 3220
F: 678 475 1747
lcarere@thermopro com
Haydn Forward
Specialty Manufacturing Co
6790 Nancy Ridge Road
San Diego, CA 92121
T: 858 450 1591
F: 858 450 0400
hforward@smi-mfg com
Richard Freeman
Freetech Plastics
2211 Warm Springs Court
Fremont, CA 94539
T: 510 651 9996
F: 510 651 9917
rfree@freetechplastics com
Ken Griep
Portage Casting & Mold
2901 Portage Road
Portage, WI 53901
T: 608 742 7137
F: 608 742 2199
ken@pcmwi com
Steve Hasselbach
CMI Plastics
222 Pepsi Way
Ayden, NC 28416
T: 252 746 2171
F: 252 746 2172
steve@cmiplastics com
Bret Joslyn
Joslyn Manufacturing
9400 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056
T: 330 467 8111
F: 330 467 6574
bret@joslyn-mfg com
Stephen Murrill
Profile Plastics
65 S Waukegan
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
T: 847 604 5100 x29
F: 847 604 8030
smurrill@thermoform com
Board of Directors
MACHINERY
COMMITTEE
James Alongi
Maac Machinery
590 Tower Blvd
Carol Stream, IL 60188
T: 630 665 1700
F: 630 665 7799
jalongi@maacmachinery com
Roger Fox
The Foxmor Group
373 S Country Farm Road
Suite 202
Wheaton, IL 60187
T: 630 653 2200
F: 630 653 1474
rfox@foxmor com
Hal Gilham
Productive Plastics, Inc
103 West Park Drive
Mt Laurel, NJ 08045
T: 856 778 4300
F: 856 234 3310
halg@productiveplastics com
Bill Kent
Brown Machine
330 North Ross Street
Beaverton, MI 48612
T: 989 435 7741
F: 989 435 2821
bill kent@brown-machine com
Don Kruschke (Chair)
Thermoforming Machinery
Equipment (TME)
31875 Solon Road
Solon, OH 44139
T: 440 498 4000
F: 440 498 4001
donk440@gmail com
Brian Winton
Modern Machinery
PO Box 423
Beaverton, MI 48612
T: 989 435 9071
F: 989 435 3940
bwinton@modernmachineinc com
MATERIALS
COMMITTEE
Jim Armor (Chair)
Armor & Associates
16181 Santa Barbara Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
T: 714 846 7000
F: 714 846 7001
jimarmor@aol com
Phil Barhouse
Spartech Packaging
Technologies
100 Creative Way
PO Box 128
Ripon, WI 54971
T: 920 748 1119
F: 920 748 9466
phil barhouse@spartech com
Donald Hylton
McConnell Company
646 Holyfield Highway
Fairburn, GA 30213
T: 678 772 5008
don@thermoforming com
Bill McConnell
McConnell Company
PO Box 11512
4216 Lanark Avenue
Fort Worth, TX 76109
T: 972 805 1787
F: 817 668 9022
C: 817 233 9620
billmc@thermoforming com
Dennis Northrop
Soliant, LLC
1872 Highway 9 Bypass West
Lancaster, SC 29720
T: 803 287 5535
dnorthrop@paintfilm com
Laura Pichon
Ex-Tech Plastics
PO Box 576
11413 Burlington Road
Richmond, IL 60071
T: 847 829 8124
F: 815 678 4248
lpichon@extechplastics com
Clarissa Schroeder
Invista S A R L
1550 Dewberry Road
Spartanburg, SC 29307
T: 864 579 5047
F: 864 579 5288
Clarissa Schroeder@invista com
Robert G Porsche
General Plastics
2609 West Mill Road
Milwaukee, WI 53209
T: 414 351 1000
F: 414 351 1284
bob@genplas com
Barry Shepherd
Shepherd Thermoforming
5 Abacus Way
Brampton, ONT L6T 5B7
T: 905 459 4545
F: 905 459 6746
bshep@shepherd ca
Walt Speck (Chair)
Speck Plastics, Inc
PO Box 421
Nazareth, PA 18064
T: 610 759 1807
F: 610 759 3916
wspeck@speckplastics com
Jay Waddell
Plastics Concepts & Innovations
1127 Queensborough Road
Suite 102
Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
T: 843 971 7833
F: 843 216 6151
jwaddell@plasticoncepts com
PROCESSING
COMMITTEE
Art Buckel
McConnell Company
3452 Bayonne Drive
San Diego, CA 92109
T: 858 273 9620
F: 858 273 6837
artbuckel@thermoforming com
Lola Carere
Thermopro
1600 Cross Point Way
Suite D
Duluth, GA 30097
T: 678 957 3220
F: 678 475 1747
lcarere@thermopro com
Haydn Forward
Specialty Manufacturing Co
6790 Nancy Ridge Road
San Diego, CA 92121
T: 858 450 1591
F: 858 450 0400
hforward@smi-mfg com
Richard Freeman
Freetech Plastics
2211 Warm Springs Court
Fremont, CA 94539
T: 510 651 9996
F: 510 651 9917
rfree@freetechplastics com
Ken Griep
Portage Casting & Mold
2901 Portage Road
Portage, WI 53901
T: 608 742 7137
F: 608 742 2199
ken@pcmwi com
Steve Hasselbach
CMI Plastics
222 Pepsi Way
Ayden, NC 28416
T: 252 746 2171
F: 252 746 2172
steve@cmiplastics com
Bret Joslyn
Joslyn Manufacturing
9400 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056
T: 330 467 8111
F: 330 467 6574
bret@joslyn-mfg com
Stephen Murrill
Profile Plastics
65 S Waukegan
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
T: 847 604 5100 x29
F: 847 604 8030
smurrill@thermoform com
Thermoforming QUArTerLY 31

Thermoforming
Quarterly®
FIRST QUARTER 2010
VOLUME 29 n NUMBER 1
Sponsor Index These sponsors enable us to publish Thermoforming Quarterly
Thermoforming
Quarterly®
FIRST QUARTER 2010
VOLUME 29 n NUMBER 1
Sponsor Index These sponsors enable us to publish Thermoforming Quarterly
n Allen ……………………………17
n Brown Machine……………….29
n CMT Materials ………………..18
n Frimo …………………………….7
n GN Plastics ……………………15
n GPEC 2010 ……………………19
n Kiefel …………………………….7
n KMT …………………………….32
n Kydex ………Inside Front Cover
n Maac Machinery ………………29
n McClarin Plastics ……………..15
n Nova Chemicals ……Back Cover
n PCI ……………………………….7
n PMC ………… Inside Back Cover
n Portage Casting & Mold ……..15
n Primex Plastics ……………….28
n Profile Plastics Corp. ………..17
n PTi ………………………………30
n Ray Products .. .. …………….17
n Solar Products………………..15
n Tempco ………………………..32
n Thermoforming Machinery &

Equipment Inc……………..28
n Thermwood……………………20
n TPS …………………………….20
n Zed Industries ………………..17

KMT ROBOTIC SOLUTIONS
robotic.na@kmtgroup.com
or Paul Schuch at (616) 443-2777
The leaders in robotic trimming
for the thermoforming industry
32 Thermoforming QUArTerLY

Leave a Reply