Polyurethane Machinery &Equipment
11 Views

PU/TPU Direct Injection Machine | Composite Soles

Review the JG116/PU-TPU direct injection machine for composite soles, with 24 or 30 stations, separate PU and TPU processing data, and selection guidance.

DIP footwear equipment

Product, Application and Configuration

Review the JG116/PU-TPU direct injection machine for composite soles, with 24 or 30 stations, separate PU and TPU processing data, and selection guidance.

Product Overview

The JG116/PU-TPU is a TPU PU direct injection machine for footwear soles combining thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and polyurethane (PU). Separate PU feeding and TPU plasticizing units need to match the weight and processing requirements of each material layer. The machine has 24 or 30 station options, with mold frame dimensions listed below. Selection starts with the sole structure and material grades, followed by the molding sequence, tooling and cycle schedule. Suitability for a specific footwear design requires process confirmation and sample trials.

Applications

The machine is intended for TPU and PU composite sole projects. Define the role of each layer through the product design, including thickness, color, cushioning and abrasion requirements. Material properties and finished footwear tests determine the resulting performance.

For safety footwear projects, assess the intended sole construction and applicable product testing separately from equipment selection.

Configuration and Selection

Start with a sole layer drawing showing material grades, layer weights and thicknesses. Then define the molding sequence, bonding method, mold movements and upper positioning. Check each processing unit against its own required shot size and processing time.

Match station count to the complete cycle schedule. Review TPU processing, PU dispensing, molding dwell, indexing and manual operations separately. The layout should identify operating space and access around the equipment.

For existing molds, compare frame dimensions, gates, opening and closing movements, layer structure and upper positioning. Matching the outside dimensions alone does not establish compatibility.

Discuss Your Project

Share the sole layer drawing, material grades, weight of each layer, upper material and target shift output. Include existing mold drawings and available installation space to request a configuration review and sample trial plan.

Product, Application and Configuration
Configuration references

Technical Specifications

PU feed rate is a mass rate; TPU plasticizing capacity is a volumetric rate. These figures describe different processing units and cannot be combined into one machine output figure.Clamping force and screw or component dimensions require technical confirmation. Overall dimensions, installed power and measured energy consumption are not specified here.

Technical ParameterJG116/PU-TPU
Stations24 or 30
Mold frame dimensions200 × 400 mm or 200 × 430 mm
PU feed rate20–60 g/s
TPU plasticizing capacity50 cm³/s
Equipment functions

Key Features

Review these functions against the selected material, tooling and operating scope.

Separate material units

Separate PU feed rate and TPU plasticizing capacity figures for checking each processing unit against its layer requirements.

Rotary station options

A choice of 24 or 30 stations for matching the molding sequence and operating layout.

Process controls

Temperature control, hydraulics and movement measurement for managing the molding process.

Mold frame options

Two listed mold frame sizes for initial tooling compatibility review.

Configuration questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Can PU and TPU capacities be compared directly?
No. PU feed rate is measured in grams per second, while TPU plasticizing capacity is measured in cubic centimeters per second. Check each unit against its own layer requirements and material conditions; neither figure establishes finished-pair output.
Can the machine make any TPU and PU sole structure?
Material names alone do not establish compatibility. Review the layer geometry, material grades, bonding method and mold movements for the proposed design. Existing molds also need gate and upper-positioning checks before reuse.
How should 24 and 30 stations be compared?
Compare the complete schedule for the same footwear design, including TPU processing, PU dispensing, molding dwell, indexing and manual tasks. More stations do not establish a proportional increase in output. Match the schedule to the available layout.
Does the equipment establish safety footwear compliance?
Equipment selection does not establish finished-footwear compliance. Assess the actual sole construction, materials and required product tests separately. Include those requirements in the sample validation scope for a suitable composite sole project.