Determination of Optimal Parting Directions in Plastic 1nji:ction Mold Design

A.Y.C.Nee(l),M.W.Fu,J.Y.H.Fuh,K.S.Lee,Y.F.Zhang
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore,
Received on December 30,1996

Abstract
Automatic recognition and extraction of undercut features is a bottleneck in computer-aided injection
mold design. The number of undercuts and their locations affect the parting directions and surfaces. side-
core mechanism, sliders and lifters design. and the overall structure of a mold. In this paper, a
methodology is proposed for the recognition and extraction of undercuts based on their geometricai
characteristics and topological relationships of the molded parts. With the developed software. undercuts
can be classified and recognized automatically from a 3-0 model of a molded part. In order to define the
undercut criteria clearly, a new classification method is presented. Since most of the injection molded parts
consist of curved surfaces and free-formed surfaces, recognition and extraction of these surfaces are also
introduced. After all the undercuts are extracted, the optimal parting direction is chosen based on the
proposed criterion of considering the number of possible undercuts and their corresponding undercut
volumes. From the case studies on several industrial parts, the methodology developed is found to be
efficient in determining the optimal parting direction of injection molded parts.
Kevwords: Injection. Molding,‘CAD.

1. Introduction number of visible directions. The visible direction

Although more plastic parts are used in engineering
and consumer products, plastic injection mold-making and
molding industries are fast expanding, their production
runs are typically of small lot-size and with great varieties.
There is a high demand for shorter design and
manufacturing lead time of injection molds as product life
cycles are becoming very short. It is imperative that: (a)
the design and manufacturing lead time be reduced: (b)
dimensional accuracy and overall quality be increased:
and (c) design changes can be easily accommodated [I].
To solve these problems, one way is to shorten the
processing time by using automated manufacturing
processes and equipments; another way is to reduce the
design lead time. Automating the design of injection molds
using a CAD system is currently a preferred method to
solve the problem. In a computer-aided injection mold
design system (CAIMDS), the generation of parting
directions and surfaces, slider and lifter, and side-core
mechanisms automatically is one of the important steps.
Recognition and extraction of undercut features and the
automatic determination of the parting direction are the
first few issues to be resolved.
Although the determination of undercuts is important in
CAIMDS, there are relatively few published works
because of the complexity of injection-molded parts. Chen
et al. [2,3] obtained the parting direction of a mold based
on the minimization of undercuts which require side-cores
or side-cavities for molding. They presented an algorithm
based on the visibility of a surface along a certain
direction. If the surface is not completely visible. an
undercut may exist in that direction. Their approach,
however, did not take into account of the internal
undercuts. Rosen et al. [4] presented an algorithm from
the viewpoint of geometric reasoning. Their principle is
nearly the same as Chen’s. The shortcomings of these
methods are the difficulty in determining the nature and
represents one of the infinite number of possible parting
directions. As a continuation of Chen’s work, Weinstein et
al. [5]used the mutual visibility criterion to determine the
concave and convex regions of a molded part. The parting
direction is generated based on the allowable draw range
of the concave region which, in turn, is determined by the
intersection of every surface draw range. For curved
surfaces, however, it is difficult to define the surface draw
range in this manner as the concave regions can be
composed of curved and free-formed surfaces. Shin and
Lee (61 presented a procedure to recognize the undercuts
by checking the interference faces between the product
and mold. This method can only be used to determine if
side-cores or side-cavities are needed and to provide
information for the design of sliders and lifters because the
parting directions and surfaces are first chosen as a
known condition. Besides these approaches, Mochizuki et
al. [7] and Ganter [8] also reported their work on this field.
Their methods are limited to planar surfaces and could not
deal with internal undercuts, inside external undercuts and
the undercut conditions of the parts with free-formed
surfaces. Although the geometry of the molded parts is
limited to planar surfaces or simple curved surfaces in
these approaches, their methodologies and algorithms are
general in nature and can be applied to complex surface
features. All these approaches are good exploratory work
in automated design of injection mold.
2. Types of undercuts and their classification
Undercuts can be defined as the convex and concave
portions of the molding that cannot be removed from the
mold along the parting direction. If the possible undercuts
cannot be molded in by cores and cavities, they will
require the incorporation of a side-core or side cavity in
the mold structure. In determining the optimal parting
direction, all the possible undercuts should be recognized
and extracted first.

Annals of the ClRP Vol. 46/1/1997 429

 The undercuts can be classified into two types: Inside external undercuts consisting
external .and internal undercuts. The external undercut is edge-loop2
of internal adjacent surfaces
the restriction region which prevents the molding from i
being withdrawn from the cavity, and the internal undercut
Target surface Internal edge-loop3 1
is the one that prevents the molding from being ejected
from the core. The external undercuts can be further
classified into inside and outside external undercut. In
order to define the inside external undercuts shown in :
Fig.l(a), the target surface is investigated. It is found that
I , sui-face I
,/ ;Target surface I,
i ” ‘L/
the edges of the target surface form the different edge- I ’ _ ’ j
loops in which the edges are linked together. The largest
edge-loop is the outside boundary of the target surface
1 ?External edge-loop1
and is designated the external edge-loop like external
edge-loop1 as shown in Fig.l(b). The other edge-loops (a) (b)
lying inside the largest edge-loop are known as the Fig.1 Inside external undercuts and their edge-loops
internal edge-loop as internal edge-loop2 and edge-loop3.
On the other hand, from the viewpoint of surface features. AL,(Ray direction)
the adjacent surfaces (S,) of a target surface are
classified into external and internal adjacent surfaces. In
Fig.l(a), the target surface is the top surface of the block,
the external adjacent surfaces are four-sided surfaces. Its
internal adjacent surfaces compose two undercuts lying
inside the target surface. The internal adjacent surfaces
can be divided into different groups in which the adjacent
surfaces are linked together and form an undercut. Based
on these definitions, it is found that the internal and
external edge loops are the intersection boundaries of the
internal and external adjacent surfaces with the target
surfaces respectively. Therefore, the inside external
undercut is composed of the inside adjacent surfaces and
its intersection boundary with the target surface is the
internal edge-loop. The outside external undercut is a kind I
! V.., Vl
of boundary perturbation which is constituted by the whole ---* L,!
target surface and its adjacent surfaces. The undercuts \J,-l (Ray direction)
are classified in such a way that it is easy to set up their
determining criteria. Similarly, the internal undercuts can
Table 1 Criteria and U, of outside external undercuts
Types Three-S, I Four-SA More than
four-S, Fig.2 Cases of outside external undercuts
Cases Fig.2(b) Fig.2(c)
also be classified into inside and outside internal
Undercut ’
(1) Lk 0.XI, > (1) VJ.2, VI.1 undercuts. The definitions are similar to the above.
criteria xk (i=1.2.3)
and v, 3. External undercuts
and x,, < xk constitute a
-
OR L, < 0, x,, concave 3.1 Outside external undercuts
< xr (j=1,2.3) portion and Let x, and L, be the centre coordinates and the
and x,, >xk v1+!,v , . ~and directional cosine or centre normal vector of the target
surface F, respectively, and x,, be the centre coordinates
(2) P: Nil V,.3 form
of the adjacent surfaces. Let L,=MaxJL,J,where k is the
another one
coordinate axis in which the component of directional
( 2 )P: Nil cosine is maximal. There are three types of possible
outside external undercuts. The undercut criteria and
Undercut (1) L,, when L, (1) L,. when L, undercut directions (U,) of the specific cases shown in
direction L,, 2 0 and L, L,, 2. 0 Fig.2 are listed in Table 1. In order to determine if an
;,,2 0, (i=1,2.3), undercut is an outside external undercut, a ray in the
-
OR -
OR normal vector direction of the target surface F, is fired. If
the number of intersection points (P) of the ray with the
(2) (L, x Ll, + (2) (4 x L,, +

molding is zero excluding the point from which the ray is

Lz, x L,) I IL, x La, x LJ I L, x
cast, the undercut is an outside external undercut. For the
L,, + L, x L. I, L,, + L, 4 I* above three types of outside external undercuts, only one
when L, L,,< when L, L., < case is given. The other cases and their criteria can be
0 or L, L2,< 0 or L, L3,< 0. developed based on the geometrical characteristics and
0. topological relationships of the molding.
3.2 Inside external undercut
Fig.3(a) shows two types of inside external undercuts,
a boss on the target surface and a hole. The procedures
to recognize the undercuts are as follows:

430

(a) (b)
Fig.3 Inside external undercuts
Internal undercut
Fig.4 Internal undercuts
(a) Extract all edges of F, and divide them into different
groups. In each group, the edges should link together and
form an edge-loop. If the number of the loops is N. the
possible undercut number will be (N-I).
(b) Determine the external edge-loop, which constitutes
the outside boundary of the target surface, the other
internal edge-loops and the centres of these edge-loops.
Let xv, be the coordinates of each vertex of an edge-loop,
the edge-loop centre xv is:
X F ( xv, + xv, +....... xv,) / n (1)
If there is no loop vertex, the loops will be the intersection
boundary of the revolutionary surfaces with the target
surface. The loop centre is at the centre of the
intersection boundary, as shown in Fig.3(b).
(c) Fire a ray in L, from xv. If P is equal to two including
the point from which the ray is cast, there exist a boss or
block on the surface which becomes the possible
undercuts as shown in Fig.3 and a side-cavity is needed
for molding. If there is no intersection point, there may
exist an undercut and a side-core is needed.
(d) Determine the undercut direction. The adjacent
surfaces whose edges constitute the internal edge-loop
form the inside undercuts and its U, can be determined
based on the centre normal vectors of these adjacent
surfaces or their axis directions. If they are all bounded
planar surfaces and B-surfaces, and L:;(j=1.2 ....n. n is the
surface number) are the directional cosines at surface
centre, U, should be in the direction of
(L,, x L, + L, x L, +....... L,.,,, x L,,) I I L,, x L,
+L,i x Ldi +....... L,-,,i x Lni1 (If n is an even number)
-
OR
(L,, x L,i + L, x Ldi +....... L",, x L,,) / I L,, x L,
+L,, x Ldi +....... L,, x L,i I (If n is an odd number)
If they are revolved surfaces, U, should be in the axis
direction A, or their resultant direction as shown in
Fig.3(b).
(e) Determine the undercut centre. Let xud be the centre of
the inside external undercut and it can be determined
from xj and
x Ud =(x,,+x*i+ ....... %I) 1 n (2)
4. Internal undercuts
The internal undercut can be molded in by a form pin
which is retracted during the ejection phase. Fig.4 is an
illustration of internal undercuts. There are also two types
of internal undercuts, namely inside and outside internal
undercuts. The criteria of internal undercuts are similar to
external undercuts. If the undercut is an internal undercut,
the rays in U, and -U, will have more than one
intersection point with the molding besides the point in
which the rays are cast. In Fig.4. if Ray 1 is in U,, there
are two intersection points between the ray and the
molding excludinG the point from which the ray is cast.
Similarly, Ray 2 has more than one intersection excluding
the casting point.
5. Curved-surface Undercuts
The main curved surfaces used in the moldings are as
follows:
5.1 Cylindrical surfaces(CY) and conical surfaces(C0)
Based on the number of vertices (V), edges (E),
adjacent surfaces (SA),and the intersection points (P) of
rays in the directions along A, or opposite A, with
the molding excluding the casting point, there are five
types of C Y and CO as summarized in Table 2. U, can be
determined according to the connecting surface (Sc) with
the molding and the adjacent surfaces of S, (top adjacent
surface). S, (bottom adjacent surface) and S, (middle
adjacent surface).
5.2 Spherical surface
A spherical surface and its adjacent surface can form
an undercut. Let h be the distance between the spherical
centre and its adjacent surface and LA,be the directional
cosine of S, (If the spherical centre is outside its adjacent
surface. h>O, otherwise. h<O). The undercut direction
determined based on the location of the sphere centre is
summarized in Table 3.
5.3 Revolved surfaces and B-Surfaces
The vertices. edges, adjacent surfaces can be
recognized and extracted from the surface models of the
revolved surfaces and B-Surfaces. For a given B-surface.
it can be recognized by the parametric coordinates !u, v]
or absolute coordinates. Any point coordinates and
normal vectors of the surface can also be extracted. After
the geometrical information and topological relationships
with other adjacent surfaces are determined, the undercut
can be identified based on these relationships using the
previously mentioned criteria.
6.Criterion of oDtimal Dartina direction (0,)
0, is selected by maximizing the number of undercuts
which can be molded in by the main core and cavity or
minimizing the number of undercuts which can only be
molded in by side-cores or side-cavities. Our approach,
however, considers not only the number of undercuts but
their volumes as well. If the x direction is chosen as the
parting direction, the possible undercuts with an undercut
direction not parallel to the parting direction will be the
real undercuts. Let all the possible undercuts be divided
into different groups such that each group has the same
undercut direction and Vq(x) be the volume of the jth
undercut in the ifh group, 0, will be selected based on
the following criterion:
111
v , ~itm
~a
=.y[C ~ ,,(x)l (i=1.2 ,...n) (3)
' I=)
431
 Optimal parting
Table 2: CY and CO and their undercuts 9 \3 \4 direction
Properties UD
V: Nil CY:
E: Two U,: Rayl or
P: Two Ray 2
Sn: ST and GO:
SB U,: Rayl If
Sc: ST or SB sc=sg
V: Nil CY:
E:Two UG: Rayl Optimal parting :.
P: One co: direction 'Y
S*: ST and U,: Rayl Fig.5 The case study
s3 undercuts. 0, is determined based on these undercuts. It
sc: Sr. ss is found that No. 1 and No. 10 undercuts need side-cores
and itself. for molding, but No.2-9 undercuts can be molded by the

@
V: Nil CY: core and cavity.
E: Two UG: Rayl or
8. Conclusions
yt P: Nil Ray 2
An efficient algorithm for automated recognition and
Sc: itself. co: extraction of possible undercuts and generation of an
Ray2 Uo: Ray2
optimal parting direction based on the geometrical
V: Four CY:U,: +A,
characteristics and topological relationships of injection

0
E: Four or -AD. if
molded parts is described in the paper. A new
S:, Sc=S, or
classification of undercuts and the criteria of all types of
Three(&. S,; i AD if
undercuts are presented. The optimal parting direction is
S8and S, ) sc=s,.
generated based on the proposed criterion of considering
C o : u ~ :+AD
Ray? the number of possible undercuts and their corresponding
or i A,
undercut volumes. A case study shows that the
methodology developed is able to provide solutions to
Table 3: Spherical surface undercuts complex molded parts.
i

UD: LAi U,:difficult to UD: L A ,
draw
where x indicates the undercut direction, n is the undercut
group number and m, is the undercut number in the ith
group. The undercut direction x which satisfies the above
criterion will be the optimal parting direction 0 , Based on
the above criterion, the sum of the undercut volumes
(Vimax)in the optimal parting direction should be greater
than the ones in any other groups. Usually, in the optimal
parting direction, the number of undercut in this undercut
group is also maximized.
7. Case study
For a given injection molded part, all the possible
undercuts can be recognized and extracted based on the
proposed method and 0, can be automatically identified.
The programs have been applied to several industrial
parts and the solutions are consistent and satisfactory.
Fig.5 shows a thin-walled plastic part made up of various
types of surfaces. It takes 123 seconds to recognize and
extract all the possible undercuts and to generate 0,on a
workstation. All the possible undercuts are recognized
and their directions are shown. No.1 and No.10 are inside
external undercuts. No.2-9 are outside external
References
(11 Altan, T., Lilly, B., W.. Kruth, J. P., Konig, W., Tonshoff,
H. K.. Van Luttervelt, C. A. and Khairy, A. B., 1993.
Advanced techniques for die and mold manufacturing.
Annals of the CIRP, 42/2:707-716
[2] Chen, L. L.. Chou. S. Y. and Woo, T C, 1993, Parting
u3: - direction for mold and die design, Computer-aided
section Design, 25:762-768
string 131 Chen. L. L., Chou. S. Y. and Woo, T C, 1995, Partial
visibility for selecting a parting direction in mold and die
design, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 14:319-330
[4] Rosen, D. W., 1994, Toward automated construction of
moulds and dies, Computers in Engineering, ASME.
1:317-326
[5]Weinstein. M. and Manoochehri, S , 1996, Geometric
Influence of a molded part on the draw direction 'range
and parting line locations, Journal of Mechanical Design,
ASME. 118129-39
[6] Shin, K. and H., Lee, K.. 1993, Design of side cores of
the injection molds from automatic detection of
interference faces, J. of Design and Manufacturing, 3:225-
236
[7] Mochizuki, T. and Yuhara, N.. 1992, Methods of
extracting potential undercut and determining optimum
withdrawal direction for mold designing, Int. J. Japan SOC.
Prec. Eng.. 26:68-73
[8] Ganter M. A. and Skoglund, P. A., 1993. Feature
Extraction for Casting Core Development, Journal of
Mechanical Design, ASME. 115744-749

432