Design and fabrication of a low-volume, high-temperature injection mould leveraging a ‘rapid tooling’ approach

  • Hamed Kalami
  • R. J. UrbanicEmail author


The costs for low-volume production moulds (1–200 production components) are related to the mould material, the process planning time and the fabrication costs. Researchers have explored using additive manufacturing (AM) processes to fabricate moulds directly from their digital models as this reduces the process planning time and some fabrication costs, but there are issues with directly employing an AM solution. Material costs are high for metallic AM processes, and there are thermal conductivity and material compatibility issues when using plastic-based AM processes. Both the metal- and plastic-based AM processes have surface finish issues; so post processing activities must be part of the fabrication plan. In this research, a methodology is found to fabricate low-volume production moulds using a high-temperature moulding material. A general solution is provided, with a case study focusing on an over moulding process in which the injection material being moulded is Technomelt-PA 7846 black. A hybrid mould fabrication is applied where a material extrusion–based process is used to make a sacrificial product-shaped pattern. This pattern is used to form a resin-based insert which is to be assembled into a mould base frame. Customised inserts can be readily built and exchanged to provide a rapid response to a customer request. An assessment of the digital model, the manufacturing, assembly and the final validated assembly model is provided.


Additive manufacturing Mould fabrication Low volume High-temperature moulding materials Process planning Rapid tooling Assembly 



Special thanks to the industrial partner for their support.

Funding information

This research is partially funded by the NSERC Engage Grant, and the Ontario Centres of Excellent VIP programs.


  1. 1.
    Government of Canada (2012) Plastics machinery and moulds. Last cited on Feb 2018
  2. 2.
    Zapciu A, Constantin G, Popescu D (2018) Elastomer overmolding over rigid 3D-printed parts for rapid prototypes. Manuf Syst 13:75–80Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung P, Heller JA, Etemadi M, Ottoson PE, Liu JA, Rand L, Roy S (2014) Rapid and low-cost prototyping of medical devices using 3D printed molds for liquid injection molding. J Vis Exp (88):e51745, 10.3791/51745Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2009) Additive manufacturing technologies: rapid prototyping to direct digital manufacturing. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wohlers Associates (2017) Wohlers report State of the industry annual worldwide progress report Wohlers. ISBN 978-0-9913332-3-3.
  6. 6.
    Balderrama-Armendariz CO, MacDonald E, Espalin D, Cortes-Saenz D, Wicker R, Maldonado-Macias A (2018) Torsion analysis of the anisotropic behavior of FDM technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96:307–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellini A, Güçeri S (2003) Mechanical characterization of parts fabricated using fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyp J 9(4):252–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lppolito R, luliano L, Gatto A (1995) Benchmarking of rapid prototyping techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy and surface finish. CIRP Ann 44(1):157–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG (2003) Improvement of surface finish by staircase machining in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol 132(1-3):323–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pennington RC, Hoekstra NL, Newcomer JL (2005) Significant factors in the dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modelling. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part E J Process Mech Eng 219(1):89–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saqib S, Urbanic R J (2011) An experimental study to determine geometric and dimensional accuracy impact factors for fused deposition modelled parts. In: ElMaraghy H. (eds) Enabling Manuf Compét Econ Sustain 293-298 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunne P, Soe SP, Byrne G, Venus A, Wheatley AR (2004) Some demands on rapid prototypes used as master patterns in rapid tooling for injection moulding. J Mater Process Technol 150:201–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Equbal A, Sood AK, Shamim M (2015) Rapid tooling: a major shift in tooling practice. J of Manuf and Ind Eng 14(3-4):1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodet V, Colton JS (2004) Properties of rapid prototype injection mold tooling materials. J Polym Eng Sci 43:125–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopkinson N, Dickens P (2010) Predicting stereolithography injection mould tool behaviour using models to predict ejection force and tool strength. Int J Prod Res 38:3747–3757. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kovács JG, Szabó F, Kovács NK, Suplicz A, Zink B, Tábi T, Hargitai H (2015) Thermal simulations and measurements for rapid tool inserts in injection molding applications. Appl Therm Eng 85:44–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Impens D, Urbanic RJ (2016) A comprehensive assessment on the impact of post-processing variables on tensile, compressive and bending characteristics for 3D printed components. Rapid Prototyp J 2:591–608. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ExOne (2018) 420 Stainless steel infiltrated with bronze. Last cited on Feb 2018.
  19. 19.
    Hölker R, Haase M, Khalifa NB, Tekkaya AE (2015) Hot extrusion dies with conformal cooling channels produced by additive manufacturing. materials today: Proceedings 2:4838–4846. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu C, Cai Z, Dai Y, Huang N, Xu F, Lao C (2018) Experimental comparison of the flow rate and cooling performance of internal cooling channels fabricated via selective laser melting and conventional drilling process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96:2757–2767. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ahn SH, Montero M, Odell D, Roundy S, Wright PK (2002) Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 8:248–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Urbanic RJ, Hedrick RW, Saquib S, Nazemi N (2018) Material bead deposition with 2 + 2 ½ multi-axis machining process planning strategies with virtual verification for extruded geometry. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:3167–3184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong KV, Hernandez A (2012) A review of additive manufacturing. Int Sch Res Netw ISRN Mech Eng 2012(10). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ma S, Gibson I, Balaji G, Hu QJ (2007) Development of epoxy matrix composites for rapid tooling applications. J Mater Process Technol 192–193:75–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tabi T, Kovacs NK, Sajo IE, Czigany T, Hajba S, Kovacs JG (2016) Comparison of thermal, mechanical and thermomechanical properties of poly(lactic acid) injection-molded into epoxy-based Rapid Prototyped (PolyJet) and conventional steel mold. J Therm Anal Calorim 123:349–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kilik R, Davies R, Darwish SMH (1989) Thermal conductivity of adhesive filled with metal powders. Int J Adhes 9:219–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fu YX, He ZX, Mo DC, Lu SS (2014) Thermal conductivity enhancement with different fillers for epoxy resin adhesives. Appl Therm Eng 66:493–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henkel (2018) TECHNOMELT PA 646 BLACK (Known as TECHNOMELT PA 7846 BLACK. Accessed December 2016
  29. 29.
    Aremco (2018) Aremco-Bond 805 High temp thermally conductive epoxy now available. Accessed 25 October 2013
  30. 30.
    Nielsen LE, Landel RF (1993) Mechanical properties of polymers and composites. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh R, Singh S, Singh IP, Fabbrocino F, Fraternali F (2017) Investigation for surface finish improvement of FDM parts by vapor smoothing process. Compos Part B: Eng 111:228–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smooth-on. (2018) Mold Star™ 15 SLOW.
  33. 33.
    Townsend V, Urbanic RJ (2012) Relating additive and subtractive processes teleologically. Rapid Prototyp J 18(/4):324–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Urbanic RJ, Hedrick R (2016) Fused deposition modelling design rules for building large, complex components. computer aided design and applications 13(3):348–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kalemi H, Urbanic RJ (2018) A hybrid manufacturing approach for low volume high temperature thermoplastic / thermoset material molds. Proc Can Soc Mech Eng Int Congr.
  36. 36.
    Saqib S, Urbanic J (2012) An experimental study to determine geometric and dimensional accuracy impact factors for fused deposition modelled parts. In: ElMaraghy H (ed) Enabling manufacturing competitiveness and economic sustainability. Springer, Berlin, pp 293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mirjavadi SS, Alipour M, Hamouda AMS, Besharati Givi MK, Emamy M (2014) Investigation of the effect of Al-8B master alloy and strain-induced melt activation process on dry sliding wear behavior of an Al–Zn–Mg–Cu alloy. Mater Des 53:308–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alipour M, Mirjavadi S, Besharati Givi MK, Razmi H, Emamy M, Rassizadehghani J (2012) Effects of Al-5TI-1B master alloy and heat treatment on the microstructure and dry sliding wear behavior of an Al-12Zn-3Mg-2.5Cu alloy. IJMSE 9(4):8–16 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li B, Pan QL, Chen CP, Yin ZM (2016) Effect of aging time on precipitation behavior, mechanical and corrosion properties of a novel Al-Zn-Mg-Sc-Zr alloy. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 26(9):2263–2275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and Materials EngineeringUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations