Identity gate
One exact machine, clamping-unit configuration and controlled quotation/specification baseline.
A series name or nominal tonnage class cannot substitute for configuration identity.G31
CLAMPING FORCE / MACHINE ACCEPTANCE
Nominal tonnage is a claim to record—not proof of the exact machine’s measured maximum clamping force.
Build one configuration-specific acceptance record from machine identity and contractual method through the measurement chain, raw result, limitations, criterion, witnesses, deviations and final disposition.
ANSWER FIRST
Agree the sixteen evidence fields before treating a machine-side force value as accepted.
Keep nominal/rated force, controller setpoint and measured maximum force in separate rows. Name the exact machine and configuration, selected method and edition, conditions, measurement chain, raw record, limitations and contractual disposition.
Build the fixed maximum-force acceptance briefDo not merge
- Required mold/process demand and machine capability
- Nominal label, setpoint and measured result
- Maximum force and platen parallelism
- Performance evidence and machine safety
- One record and complete FAT/SAT release
CAPABILITY BOUNDARY
This is a buyer acceptance register, not a tested-force, instrument, compliance or certification claim.
No NEW ORIENTAL IMM tested force, measurement instrument, accuracy, repeatability, tolerance, calibration, control function, EUROMAP 7 compliance, ISO 20430 compliance, certification, conformity or passed FAT/SAT result is claimed.
No fixed allowable deviation, force, test load, measurement position, correction, repetition count, safety margin, sequence, tolerance, default method, default instrument or pass/fail rule is supplied. Actual values and methods require project-controlled evidence and approval.
INTENT OWNERSHIP
Keep one maximum-force record separate from five adjacent decisions.
The same machine, platen, mold or FAT/SAT file may appear in several records, but each route answers a different procurement question.
| Decision owner | Owns | Must stay separate |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum clamping-force acceptance record | One exact machine and clamping-unit configuration, its claimed value, selected test basis, controlled conditions, measurement chain, raw record, reported result, limitations, contractual criterion and disposition. | It does not prescribe a test procedure, prove a supplier result or release another machine, configuration, mold or production process. |
| Required mold/process clamp demand | Projected area, approved cavity-pressure basis, pressure distribution, tool loads and a project-confirmed margin for the molding job. | Calculated demand is not measured machine capability; a measured maximum-force record does not calculate the demand for a mold and process. |
| Toggle versus two-platen architecture | Clamp architecture, mold access, movement, footprint, maintenance and project-specific operating trade-offs. | Architecture names do not prove a maximum force, measurement method, repeatability, platen behavior or machine suitability. |
| Mold mounting and platen interface | Platen dimensions, tie-bar spacing, centering, mounting pattern, contact surfaces, mold load and the exact mechanical fit record. | Maximum force does not prove mold fit, platen parallelism, force distribution, tie-bar balance or acceptable contact geometry. |
| Complete FAT and SAT programme | The full approved machine/cell scope, conditions, instruments, observations, witnesses, deviations, retest and acceptance authority. | This page supplies one evidence register, not a complete FAT/SAT plan, fixed challenge sequence, safety validation or production release. |
| Machine safety and conformity evidence | Applicable legal regime, risk assessment, safeguards, declarations, standards evidence, instructions and responsible economic-operator records. | A maximum-force record and an ISO 20430 title do not prove safety, compliance, conformity, certification or CE documentation. |
OFFICIAL SOURCE / SCOPE BOUNDARY
Keep EUROMAP 7, 9 and 10—and ISO 20430—in their own evidence rows.
Historical recommendations and the current ISO safety record may frame questions. Only the controlled project record releases a result for the exact machine and configuration.
| Source | Public status | May inform | Cannot release |
|---|---|---|---|
| EUROMAP technical-recommendations catalogue | Current catalogue reviewed 1 August 2026; separately lists EUROMAP 7 (1995), EUROMAP 9 (1998) and EUROMAP 10 (1975) | The exact document number, historical year, public title and which evidence question each recommendation addresses. | An ISO status, legal requirement, certification, universal procedure, supplier capability, measured result or project acceptance. |
| EUROMAP 7 (1995) | Official historical recommendation titled for determination of the maximum clamping force of injection moulding machines | The candidate method-and-edition row for a buyer/supplier acceptance record when the parties agree its applicability. | A fixed method, position, sequence, deviation, repetition count, correction, tolerance, pass/fail rule or NEW ORIENTAL IMM result. |
| EUROMAP 9 (1998) | Official historical recommendation separately titled for testing platen parallelism | A distinct adjacent evidence request where platen parallelism matters to the project. | Maximum force, force distribution, tie-bar balance, mold fit, production quality or an interchangeable EUROMAP 7 method. |
| EUROMAP 10 (1975) | Official historical general testing-and-acceptance recommendation for injection moulding machines | A contractual discussion about supplier/buyer test scope, acceptance stage and document disposition. | A universally current procedure, a substitute for EUROMAP 7, a fixed acceptance rule or a completed FAT/SAT programme. |
| ISO 20430:2020 | Published injection-moulding-machine safety standard; current public ISO record confirmed in 2025 | Only the separate safety-scope and standards-evidence discussion for the exact machine and destination market. | A maximum-clamping-force performance test, measured force, safety result, conformity, certification or supplier compliance. |
| Controlled project acceptance record | Configuration-specific evidence agreed by the buyer, supplier and responsible test/acceptance parties | The actual machine identity, selected method, conditions, measurement chain, raw data, reported result, limitations, criterion and disposition. | Another machine or configuration, a universal tolerance, mold-fit result, production-quality result or unsupported supplier claim. |
FIXED RFQ REGISTER / 16 FIELDS
Request the same sixteen evidence fields for every proposed machine.
Leave unknowns open. Do not fill them from a tonnage class, standard title, controller screen, machine-family statement or another project's record.
| RFQ field | Record | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Exact machine and clamping-unit configuration | Machine identity, clamping-unit architecture, included configuration, relevant revisions and the physical unit presented for acceptance | Controlled identity/configuration record that prevents a family name or another machine from standing in for the tested unit |
| Quotation revision | Quotation, specification and amendment revision that contains the claimed value and purchased scope | Buyer-approved document index with superseded revisions retained and discrepancies still visible |
| Nominal/rated value and unit | The exact label, value, unit, source document and whether it is nominal, rated, set, calculated or otherwise defined | Controlled supplier statement without treating a nameplate, tonnage class or controller entry as a measured result |
| Purpose and acceptance stage | Buyer decision served, factory/site stage, release boundary and questions deliberately excluded | Approved acceptance matrix showing why the record is needed and which later decisions remain open |
| Selected method and edition | Named method, document number, year or edition, applicability decision, amendments and responsible method owner | Contract-controlled reference; the page supplies no default method and reproduces no protected procedure detail |
| Contractual scope | Included parties, responsibilities, deliverables, exclusions, acceptance authority and precedence among purchase documents | Signed scope/requirement matrix retaining unresolved conflicts rather than filling them from generic guidance |
| Machine/test preconditions | Required machine state, configuration, environment, preparation, safety controls and limitation owners for the agreed test | Method- and machine-specific approved condition record; no precondition or setup is prescribed by this page |
| Measurement principle | The physical measurement principle, relationship to the clamping system, interpretation and declared limitations | Configuration-specific technical statement from the responsible test party without a default instrument or principle |
| Measurement locations | Every agreed location, channel relationship, reference system, mapping and responsibility for installed or temporary equipment | Released drawing or method record; no universal location or force-distribution inference is supplied |
| Instrument identity and range | Instrument manufacturer/model/serial identity, configured range, unit, revision, connection and applicability declaration | Device-specific record from the responsible party; no instrument, range or accuracy is attributed to NEW ORIENTAL IMM |
| Calibration traceability | Calibration or verification record, date/status, traceability statement, applicability and limitation owner | Dated instrument-specific evidence; no interval, laboratory, method, accuracy or traceability claim is supplied here |
| Repetitions and raw records | The contract-agreed observation count, sequence reference, unrounded raw entries, invalid runs and retained data location | Complete signed/raw record with exclusions explained; this page sets no repetition count or test sequence |
| Reported result and unit | Reported maximum-force result, original unit, calculation/rounding treatment, source record and responsible reporter | Configuration-specific report clearly separated from nominal/rated values and controller setpoints |
| Stated uncertainty or limitations | Declared measurement uncertainty where supplied, method/instrument limitations, excluded effects and interpretation boundary | Responsible-party statement; absence remains visible and no generic accuracy or repeatability is inferred |
| Criterion/tolerance and responsible approver | Contract source for the project-specific criterion, its unit/basis, approval status, exception authority and named role | Buyer/supplier-approved requirement; no allowable deviation, safety margin, tolerance or pass/fail rule is supplied by this page |
| Witnesses, deviations, retest and final report disposition | Required witnesses, observations, deviations, containment, retest decision, approvals, open actions and final controlled-report location | Signed disposition record that does not turn a partial observation or unsigned draft into machine acceptance |
EVIDENCE RELEASE
Move from identity to final disposition without turning the register into a test procedure.
Buyer, supplier and responsible test/acceptance parties own the selected method, safe conditions, instruments, criteria and release.
Method and condition gate
The agreed method/edition, contractual applicability, preconditions, measurement principle, locations and instrument record.
A standard title alone does not prove that a method was selected, followed or applicable.Result and limitation gate
Raw records, reported value/unit, declared uncertainty or limitations and traceable responsible parties.
Nominal/rated force and controller settings remain separate from a measured maximum-force result.Disposition gate
Contractual criterion, approvals, witnesses, deviations, retest and final report disposition.
One accepted record does not prove platen parallelism, mold fit, safety, production quality or another machine.PRIMARY SOURCES / BOUNDARY
Use official EUROMAP and ISO records without turning their titles into machine results.
Reviewed 1 August 2026. The EUROMAP catalogue keeps EUROMAP 7 (1995), EUROMAP 9 (1998) and EUROMAP 10 (1975) separate. ISO 20430:2020 is a published machine-safety standard whose current public record was confirmed in 2025; it is not the maximum-clamping-force test. None of these records proves a NEW ORIENTAL IMM result, compliance, certification, conformity or passed acceptance.
Technical Recommendations catalogue
The catalogue reviewed 1 August 2026 separately lists EUROMAP 7 (1995) for maximum clamping force, EUROMAP 9 (1998) for platen parallelism and EUROMAP 10 (1975) for general testing and acceptance.
Boundary: Catalogue presence supplies public title and historical status only. It does not establish ISO status, legal force, certification, supplier capability, a universal procedure or a machine result.
EUROMAP 7 (1995) — Determination of the maximum clamping force
The official historical recommendation is the directly named machine-side maximum-clamping-force source that buyer and supplier may select contractually.
Boundary: No protected procedure, fixed position, load, correction, repetition count, allowable deviation, tolerance, pass/fail rule or NEW ORIENTAL IMM result is reproduced or inferred.
EUROMAP 9 (1998) — Testing of platen parallelism
The official historical recommendation identifies platen parallelism as a separate machine evidence question.
Boundary: It is not equivalent to EUROMAP 7 and does not prove maximum force, force distribution, tie-bar balance, mold fit or production quality.
EUROMAP 10 (1975) — Testing and acceptance of machines
The official historical recommendation provides general supplier/buyer testing-and-acceptance context whose applicability must be agreed in the contract.
Boundary: It is not reproduced as a universal current procedure, a substitute for EUROMAP 7, a fixed acceptance criterion or a complete FAT/SAT programme.
ISO 20430:2020 — Injection moulding machines — Safety requirements
ISO's current public record identifies the published safety standard and records confirmation in 2025.
Boundary: Its scope is machine safety. It is not a maximum-clamping-force performance test and proves no measured force, supplier compliance, conformity, certification or acceptance result.
BUYER QUESTIONS
Injection molding machine maximum clamping-force acceptance FAQ
The answers keep machine demand, nominal values, measured performance, platen evidence, safety and supplier claims in separate controlled records.
01Does nominal tonnage prove the maximum clamping force of the exact machine?+
No. Preserve the nominal/rated value as one sourced field, then separately agree the exact machine/configuration, method, conditions, measurement chain, raw record, reported result, limitations, contractual criterion and disposition. A controller setpoint is separate again.
02Does this page claim a NEW ORIENTAL IMM force result or test capability?+
No. No tested force, instrument, accuracy, repeatability, tolerance, calibration, method implementation, compliance, certification or passed FAT/SAT result is attributed to NEW ORIENTAL IMM. Those fields remain open until controlled machine-specific evidence exists.
03Are EUROMAP 7 and EUROMAP 9 interchangeable?+
No. The current catalogue names EUROMAP 7 (1995) for determination of maximum clamping force and EUROMAP 9 (1998) for platen parallelism. They own different evidence questions, and neither result can be inferred from the other.
04Does EUROMAP 10 supply the complete current FAT/SAT procedure?+
No. EUROMAP 10 (1975) is retained as historical general supplier/buyer testing-and-acceptance context. Its age, applicability and contractual role must be agreed; this page does not reproduce it as a universal procedure.
05Does ISO 20430:2020 prove maximum clamping force or machine compliance?+
No. ISO's public record identifies a machine-safety standard, not a maximum-clamping-force performance test. A title does not prove a measured result, implemented requirement, conformity, certification or acceptance.
06Which tolerance, instrument, measurement position or repetition count should be used?+
This page supplies no default. The contract and responsible technical parties must identify the selected method/edition, applicable conditions, measurement principle and locations, instrument and calibration evidence, repetition/raw-record plan, criterion and approval authority.
07What belongs in the maximum clamping-force acceptance RFQ?+
Request all sixteen fixed fields: machine/configuration; quotation revision; nominal/rated value; purpose/stage; method/edition; contract scope; preconditions; principle; locations; instrument/range; calibration; repetitions/raw records; result/unit; uncertainty/limitations; criterion/approver; and witnesses, deviations, retest and report disposition.
RFQ / MAXIMUM CLAMPING-FORCE ACCEPTANCE
Send the exact machine, claimed value and sixteen-field evidence requirement.
Attach the machine and clamping-unit configuration, quotation revision, nominal/rated value, purpose and stage, selected method and edition, contractual scope, preconditions, measurement principle and locations, instrument and calibration evidence, repetitions and raw records, reported result and unit, stated uncertainty or limitations, criterion and approver, witnesses, deviations, retest and final report disposition. Keep every unconfirmed value, method, instrument, tolerance, compliance statement and result open.
Build the machine brief