Journal of Materials Processing Technology 178 (2006) 350357

Simulation of the gas-assisted injection molding process using a

mid-plane model of a contained-channel part
A. Marcilla

, A. Odjo-Omoniyi, R. Ruiz-Femenia, J.C. Garca-Quesada

Chemical Engineering Department, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain
Received 5 April 2005; received in revised form 5 April 2005; accepted 4 April 2006
Abstract
Computer-aided engineering (CAE) simulation and experimental studies have been carried out on the cavity lling and gas packing steps in
the gas-assisted injection molding of a contained-channel part. A mid-plane model of the three-dimensional geometry of the mold cavity has
been proposed to be analyzed by the nite element method. The shot size, the distribution of the gas bubble and the residual wall thickness were
calculated using a commercial simulation software (Moldow Plastics Insight Version 4.1). The outcomes predicted by simulation were compared
with the experimental results indicating the good predictive capability of the proposed model.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gas-assisted injection molding; Computer simulation; CAE analysis; Model; Mold lling
1. Introduction
Nowadays gas-assisted injection molding (GAIM) is not an
innovative technology for manufacturing hollowed plastic parts
withthe rst patent datingfrom1978[1]. However, the establish-
ment as a common molding process has not yet been achieved
in the polymer industry. This is a result of some pitfalls in the
practical application of the GAIM process due to the inherent
gas instability that implies a complex relationship between the
parameters which control the gas ow and the quality of the
molded parts. Its higher limitation is the understanding of the
characteristics of the process, specially with respect to the typi-
cal ow phenomenon.
There are four different processes to produce GAIM parts:
short-shot process, full-shot process, back-to-screw process and
mold with retractable cores [2]. In this work, we have studied the
rst process which is also called the standard GAIM. The short-
shot process can be described by a simple three-step process:
1. A short-shot of molten polymer initially lls 7090% of the
mold cavity under the ram speed control of the injection
molding machine (Fig. 1a).

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 96 590 3789; fax: +34 96 590 3826.
E-mail address: antonio.marcilla@ua.es (A. Marcilla).
2. After a short delay period, compressed nitrogen gas cores
out the molten polymer. The penetrating gas leaves behind
a polymer layer at the mold walls, attaining a molded part
with a polymer skin and an inner gas channel (Fig. 1b). Gas
penetration which takes place at this step is denominated
primary gas penetration. This step nishes when the mold
cavity has been entirely lled (Fig. 1c).
3. Gas is continuously injected to transmit the packing pres-
sure to the polymer. At this stage the polymer shrinkage is
counteracted by a growth of the gas core. The gas packing
pressure remains until all polymer material has solidied.
Gas penetration during post-lling step is termed secondary
gas penetration (Fig. 1d).
In full-shot GAIM the rst step of the short-shot process is
extended until the shot weight of molten polymer lls entirely
the mold cavity. The effects of the processing conditions on
the behaviour of gas penetration in full-shot GAIM have been
investigated by other researchers [3,4].
Back-to-screw process is similar to the full-shot process.
The difference is that plastic is pushed back into the injection
unit (in front of the screw). The last GAIM process, mold with
retractable cores, is based in the variation of the volume of the
mold cavity which is accomplished using a core. The initial vol-
ume of the mold is the minimum and when the gas is injected,
simultaneously, the core is pulled back to increase the cavity
volume.
0924-0136/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.04.095
A. Marcilla et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 178 (2006) 350357 351
Fig. 1. Description of the steps of the short-shot process (standard GAIM): (a)
polymer short-shot; (b) start of primary gas penetration; (c) end of primary gas
penetration; (d) secondary gas penetration.
GAIM offers a considerable number of advantages over con-
ventional injection molding. These advantages mainly originate
from the near constant value of the gas pressure throughout the
gas core as a result of the pressure drop in the gas core is insignif-
icant compared with the pressure drop in an equivalent molten
polymer [5]. The advantages over conventional injection mold-
ing are reduced part weight, injection pressure, clamp force,
shrinkage, warpage and residual stress, apart from better sur-
face nish [6]. Moreover GAIM enhanced design possibilities
and thick-sectioned components are possible without excessive
warpage, shrinkage and cooling time [7].
All these advantages are exploited only if the design and
processing parameters are perfectly understood. GAIM appli-
cation is more critical than conventional injection molding
due to the additional parameters which are introduced, such
as the numbers and location of gas injection points, the
amount of molten polymer injected (shot size), the gas delay
time, the injected gas pressure and the holding time for gas
injection.
Optimization of molds and products by trial-and-error meth-
ods, i.e., by modifying the mold and changing the process
parameters in a series of test moldings, is both expensive and
time consuming. With the advent of scientic-based computer-
aided engineering (CAE) simulation tools, engineers can eval-
uate alternative design routes and materials without physically
committing real material and machine time. They enable the
optimization of the injection molding process allowing the pre-
diction of the gas distribution in the molded part and the resulting
part properties [79]. In this way, the simulation of GAIM can
help elucidate the characteristics of the process and extend the
molding experience.
To perform a simulation, a CAE technique must be adopted
which involves the creation of a suitable model of the mold
cavity. This model should be optimized to apply on them the
numerical methods which are needed to carry out the sim-
ulation, i.e., nite difference method (FDM), nite element
method (FEM), boundary element method (BEM) and nite
volume method (FVM) [10]. These numerical methods require
discretization of the physical domain (geometric model) into
nite sub-domains (elements) obtaining a mesh model of the
mold cavity. Through the discretization, the continuous govern-
ing equations are converted into a set of discretize algebraic
equations to be solved by the use of the computer. There are
three main different types of mesh models based on the type
of the element used to construct them: one-dimensional tubu-
lar elements (strip mesh), two-dimensional triangular elements
(mid-plane mesh) and tetrahedral elements (three-dimensional
mesh). According to the model used, different analysis can be
performed: 2, 2.5 and 3-dimensional simulations, respectively
[11,12]. Obviously, the higher the complexity of the element
used the higher the accuracy of the simulation, albeit computa-
tion time is considerably increased.
The major benet of a two-dimensional analysis is speed
although their results are not equivalent to those produced with
more advanced analysis. In the case of GAIM simulation, strip
models lack the ability to predict an unsymmetrical polymer
wall distribution at any cross-section of the part.
Most of commercial injection molding simulation packages
are based on the so-called thin-lm or HeleShaw approxima-
tion developed by Hieber and Shen [13], in which the fact that
most injection parts are thin-walled is used to decouple owand
thermal effects in mid-plane and thickness directions; this has
led to what is known as the 2.5-dimensional approach [14]. As
a mid-plane model is generated by a surface, which is a two-
dimensional geometry entity, to attain a representation of the
three-dimensional geometry of the part, a numerical attribute
called thickness is assigned to all the at elements that compose
the mid-plane mesh. Many authors have investigated the relia-
bility of these commercial packages regarding to the simulation
of conventional injection molding [1520] and also concern-
ing GAIM for parts designed with gas channels [7,21,22]. This
approach has become the state-of-the-art for the simulation of
injection molding processes.
Some programs provide three-dimensional simulation of the
polymer GAIM process. However the analysis time is very
long, even using high-speed parallel processing CPUs. The time-
consuming issue is still more important if we are dealing with
the mold design stage [23,24]. Moreover, nowadays, these pro-
grams are not able to perform all the analysis that can be carried
out with a mid-plane model such as, cooling, warpage and stress
analysis. In accordance with this, in this work, it has been created
a mid-plane representationof the moldcavityinvolvinga consid-
erable geometric simplication due to the mid-plane mesh that
has to be created either from scratch or degenerated (collapsed)
from an existing three-dimensional CAD design model. Some
commercial simulation programs are able to deal automatically
with this task. Nevertheless, when for some areas of the part,
a unique mid-plane representation does not exist as occurs in
the part studied, the mid-plane creation must be accomplished
manually [25].
352 A. Marcilla et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 178 (2006) 350357
Table 1
Properties of polypropylene ISPLEN PB 130 G1M
Properties (unit) Method Value
Physical
Melt ow rate (230

C; 2.16 kg) (g/10 min) ISO 1133 1.3

Specic gravity (g/cm
3
) ISO 1183 0.905
Mechanical
Flexural modulus (MPa) ISO 178 1050
Izod notched impact strength (23

C) (kJ/m
2
) ISO 180 15
Izod unnotched impact strength (20

C) (kJ/m
2
) ISO 180 70
Thermal
Vicat softening temperature (

C) ISO 306/A 140

Others
Shore hardness (D scale) ISO 868 60
The aim of this work is to show the approximation achieved
using a mid-plane model (2.5-dimensional analysis) to simu-
late GAIM instead of using a complex three-dimensional model
which is high-computation time consuming and does not allow,
nowadays, the simulation of most of the analysis which can be
executed with a mid-plane model of the part.
2. Experiments and simulation
2.1. Material specications
The polymer used in this study was commercial polypropylene injection
molding grade ISPLEN PB 130 G1M supplied by Repsol-YPF. Table 1 lists the
properties provided by the manufacturer.
2.2. Part geometry
According to the classication proposed by Avery [2] the geometry of our
mold cavity (Fig. 2) leads to a contained-channel part where the control of the
gas ow relies on the total part geometry. The part is circular in cross-section
with a diameter of 16 mm for the external cross-beams (labelled 1 and 4) and
Table 2
Constant process parameters used to produce the molded parts by GAIM
Parameter Value
Cylinder temperatures (

C) 230, 225, 220, 215

Nozzle temperature (

C) 235
Mold surface temperature (

C) 40
Injection speed (cm
3
/s) 90
Gas delay time (s) 0
Gas pressure (bar) 150
Gas holding time (s) 18
Cooling time (s) 15
Inlet coolant temperature (

C) 20
with a diameter of 14 mm for the two internal cross-beams (labelled 2 and 3).
The total dimensions of the part are 200 mm128 mm60 mm.
2.3. Injection molding machine and gas injection unit
The experiment was conducted using a 1300 kN Battenfeld TM1300/750
Unilog B4 injection molding machine equipped with a Airmould

-Modular
systemwhich is based in a pressure-controlled process and comprises four mod-
ules: gas supply (by nitrogen bottles), compressor, gas pressure control and gas
injection. The injection molding machine has a screw diameter of 50 mm which
provides a theoretical shot volume of 442 cm
3
(polystyrene) with a maximum
specic pressure of 1714 bar.
2.4. Process parameters
The xed process parameters are shown in Table 2. They were chosen based
on material and equipment suppliers recommended processing ranges. The
quantity of molten polymer injected just before gas injection started was opti-
mized as explained below. Using the optimum conditions 50 parts were molded
in order to achieve the stabilization of the characteristics in the molded parts
(weight was controlled). Finally, 20 parts more were produced and labelled to
be studied.
The polymer is injected into the mold cavity through a sprue gate and a single
gas needle was placed in the runner system in a special antechamber behind the
gate and the cavity (see Fig. 3). If the gas needle is placed directly into the
cavity the polymer ow will be divided by the gas needle and weld lines will be
generated provoking a decient propagation of the gas bubble [26].
Fig. 2. Part geometry (indication of the cross-sections used to compare the residual wall thickness).
A. Marcilla et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 178 (2006) 350357 353
Fig. 3. Feed system of the mold with locations for polymer and gas injection.
2.5. Characterization of the molded parts by GAIM
To determine the accuracy of the simulation outcomes the gas bubble pen-
etration in the experimental parts has been studied. Furthermore, it has been
measured the residual wall thickness, which is dened as the thickness of the
polymer layer that is left behind at the mold walls after the gas front has passed.
According to Poslinski et al. [27] the residual wall thickness in GAIM is deter-
mined by two phenomena: the penetration of a gas into a viscous liquid, and the
growth of the solid layer.
To evaluate the two characteristics above mentioned the molded parts were
sectioned by parallel planes to its symmetry plane at 20 mmintervals throughout
the complete length of the part (200 mm).
2.6. Computer simulation
Molded parts by GAIM were simulated using the commercial software,
Moldow Plastics Insight (release 4.1). The rst stage of any simulation by the
nite element method (FEM) is called pre-process. This is the most time-
consuming step and consists of creating the geometric model of the mold cavity
to be analyzed. This can be performed by using either the simulation software
itself or one of the computer-aided design (CAD) computer programs. In this
work, an external CAD software, called GiD

(developed by the International

Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering) has been used. It consists of
an interactive graphical user interface that provides pre-processing tools for the
numerical simulation of industrial and academic problems [28]. Following, the
geometric model must be meshed using triangular elements. Afterwards, the
Fig. 5. Cross-section representation of the part using a mid-plane model con-
stituted by ve sections (numbers into boxes are the thickness in millimeters of
each mid-plane section).
polymer is selected and the injection locations are set. To nish this rst stage,
it is required to introduce into the simulation software the process conditions.
In the second stage of a simulation process, uid mechanical and heat transfer
calculations are conducted applying a nite element and nite difference analy-
sis. The GAIM simulation has been carried out using the MPI/gas module of the
simulation software. The last stage of a simulation is called post-process and
is where the experience of the analyst is required in order to extract the reliable
and most important information fromthe multiples coloured map results offered
by the simulation.
Fig. 4. Finite element model proposed. The cavity is represented by a mid-plane model whereas the runner system uses a strip model.
354 A. Marcilla et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 178 (2006) 350357
Fig. 6. Comparison of the ow front displacement in both models using a lling analysis of a conventional injection molding.
Fig. 4 shows the nite element model used to carry out the simula-
tion. It consists of a simplied model (mid-plane) based on Hellen Shal-
lows approximation. To account for the thickness variation which exists in
any cross-section of the part, the mid-plane surface has been divided into
ve sections. As a result, the cross-section of the real three-dimensional
geometry is represented, approximately, by assigning a specic thickness
to each one of the ve sections which constitute the mid-plane model
(Fig. 5).
A. Marcilla et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 178 (2006) 350357 355
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Checking the suitability of the mid-plane model
To prove if the mid-plane model proposed is adequate to
GAIM simulation we have compared the simulation outcomes
of a three-dimensional model with those offered by the mid-
plane model when a conventional injection molding analysis is
carried out. Specially, we focused on the ll time result which
shows the position of the ow front at regular intervals as the
cavity lls. Fig. 6 shows, at each instant, the position of the
ow front in both models through the lling analysis stage of
the conventional injection molding. As can be observed, the
polymer ow front progress is virtually the same in both cases.
For example, both models predict that cross-beam 3 is the rst
of the two internal cross-beams to be completely lled by the
molten polymer. Consequently, the mid-plane model proposed
can be considered as an accurate representation of the real three-
dimensional mold geometry and it has been used to perform the
simulation of the GAIM technique.
3.2. Simulated and experimental results
Firstly, the minimum quantity of molten polymer (shot
weight) which avoids gas blows throughout melt front (also
called gas breakthrough) has been used to compare experimental
and simulated GAIM process. Gas breakthrough occurs when
the gas front overtakes the polymer front. In a gas channel a
mass balance conservation imposes that the gas front velocity
is always larger than the polymer front velocity. Therefore, the
quantity of molten polymer ahead the gas front (owresistance)
Fig. 7. Comparison of the gas pattern between molded (black line) and simulated
part (grey scale).
decreases continuously during gas injection causing both fronts
to be accelerated. This phenomenon prohibits the complete ll-
ing of the mold and should be prevented by injecting a sufcient
amount of molten polymer before the gas is injected. According
to Yang and Liou [29], in GAIM, for a xed melt temperature
the most critical parameter is the shot weight. In order to obtain
the optimumprocess conditions for the molded part it was rstly
manufacture a part without the aid of gas using a conventional
injection molding process. The shot weight that just lled the
cavity (without any short-shot or packing) was 120 g, and this
mass was taken as reference. Afterwards, the quantity of injected
polymer was reduced and the gas injection started. Following
this procedure, the minimum mass of molten polymer which
avoids gas breakthrough was 101.7 g. That means that for a den-
Fig. 8. Comparison of the wall thickness distribution between molded and simulated part in the four cross-beams sections obtained when the part is sectioned by the
planes A and B.