Engineering with Computers (2006) 21: 289–295
DOI 10.1007/s00366-006-0018-x
O R I GI N A L A R T IC L E
Geng Tie Æ Li Dequn Æ Zhou Huamin
Three-dimensional finite element method for the filling simulation
of injection molding
Received: 28 December 2004 / Accepted: 26 January 2006 / Published online: 20 May 2006

Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006
Abstract With the development of molding techniques,
molded parts have more complex and larger geometry
with nonuniform thickness. In this case, the velocity and
the variation of parameters in the gapwise direction are
considerable and cannot be neglected. A three-dimen-
sional (3D) simulation model can predict the filling
process more accurately than a 2.5D model based on the
Hele–Shaw approximation. This paper gives a mathe-
matical model and numeric method based on 3D model
to perform more accurate simulations of a fully flow.
The model employs an equal-order velocity–pressure
interpolation method. The relation between velocity and
pressure is obtained from the discretized momentum
equations in order to derive the pressure equation. A 3D
control volume scheme is used to track the flow front.
During calculating the temperature field, the influence of
convection items in three directions is considered. The
software based on this 3D model can calculate the
pressure field, velocity field and temperature field in
filling process. The validity of the model has been tested
through the analysis of the flow in cavities.
Keywords 3D Æ Equal-order interpolation Æ
Injection molding Æ Simulation
1 Introduction
During injection molding, the rheological response of
polymer melts is generally non-Newtonian and noniso-
G. Tie Æ L. Dequn Æ Z. Huamin
State Key Laboratory of Mold & Die Technology,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, Hubei 430074, People’s Republic of China
G. Tie (&)
Machine and Electric Engineering College,
Henan University of Technology,
450052 Zhengzhou, Henan, People’s Republic of China
E-mail: gengtie2000@sina.com
Tel.: +86-0371-67758626
Fax: +86-372-3932808
thermal with the position of the moving flow front [1–3].
Because of these inherent factors, it is difficult to analyze
the filling process. Therefore, simplifications are usually
used. For example, in traditional middle-plane model
and dual-domain model [4, 5], the Hele–Shaw approxi-
mation [6] is used. So both of these models are 2.5D
models. In 2.5D model, the velocity and the variation of
pressure in the gapwise direction are neglected except
that the temperature is solved by FDM, and the filling of
a mold cavity becomes a 2D problem in flow direction
and a 1D problem in gapwise direction. As most of the
injection molded parts have a sheet-like geometry in
which the thickness is much smaller than the other
dimensions of the part, these models have been generally
successful in predicting the advancement of melt fronts,
pressure fields, and temperature distribution.
The interest in 3D simulation of injection molding has
increased tremendously and some progress has been made
[7–9] in the past few years. One reason is the processing of
large and complex parts. With the development of
molding techniques, more and more molded parts have
thick or nonuniform thickness, such as those encountered
in gas-assisted injection molding. In these cases, the
velocity and the changes of parameters in the gapwise
direction are considerable and cannot be neglected. On
the other hand, the requirements on the performance of
injection molded items have been ever increasing. Several
situations occurring during mold filling which cannot be
accurately predicted using the Hele–Shaw approximation
need to taken into account nowadays, such as the fluid
behavior at the free surface (flow front), the fluid behavior
near and at the solid walls, the phenomenon occurring at
merging of two or more fluid streams (weldlines), and the
kinematics in areas where shear and extensional defor-
mations contribute significantly to the stress field (gates,
ribs, etc.). A 3D simulation model should be able to gen-
erate complementary and more detailed information re-
lated to the flow characteristics and stress distributions in
molded parts. This will be particularly important when
dealing with multicomponent mold filling and with
molding of fiber-reinforced systems.
290

This paper presents a 3D finite element model to deal g0 ðT ; P Þ

with the 3D flow of injection molding. In this model, the g¼ . ;
velocity in the gapwise direction is not neglected and the 1 þ ðg0 c_ s Þ1
n
pressure also varies in this direction. An equal-order
velocity–pressure formulation method [10–12] is em- where n, c_ ; s* are non-Newtonian index, shear rate and
ployed, and the relation between velocity and pressure is material constant, respectively.
obtained from the discretized momentum equations. A Because there is no notable change in the scope of
3D control volume scheme is introduced to track the flow melt temperature during filling, Arrhenius model [13] for
front. During calculating temperature field, the influence g0 is employed as following:


of convection items in three directions is considered in Tb
order to get more exact results and to apply to the wider g0 ðT ; P Þ ¼ B exp expðbP Þ;
T
range of parts. Finally, the validity of the model has been
where B, Tb, b are material constants.
tested through the analysis of some cases.

3 Finite element calculations for the pressure field

2 Governing equations
3.1 Velocity–pressure relation
The pressure of melt is not very high during filling the
cavity, so the melt is considered incompressible. Inertia and In a 3D model, since the change of the physical quan-
gravitation are neglected as compared to the viscous force. tities are not neglected in the gapwise direction, the
With the above approximation, the governing equa- momentum equations are much more complex than
tions, expressed in Cartesian coordinates, are as fol- those in a 2.5D model. It is impossible to obtain the
lowing: Momentum equations: velocity–pressure relation by integrating the momentum

 
 
 equations in the gapwise direction, which is done in a
@ @u @ @v @u @ @w @u
2g þ g þ þ g þ 2.5D model. The momentum equations must be first
@x @x @y @x @y @z @x @z
discretized, and then the relation between velocity and
@ðP Þ pressure is derived from it. In this paper, the momentum

¼0

@x 
 
 equations are discretized using Galerkin’s method with
@ @v @u @ @v @ @w @v bilinear velocity–pressure formulation. The element
g þ þ 2g þ g þ equations are assembled in the conventional manner to
@x @x @y @y @y @z @y @z
: form the discretized global momentum equations and
@ðP Þ

¼0 the velocity may be expressed as following:
@y

 

 @P @P @P
@ @w @u @ @v @w @ @w ui ¼ ~ui
Kiu vi ¼ ~vi
Kiv ~ i
Kiw
wi ¼ w ; ð4Þ
g þ þ g þ þ 2g @x @y @z
@x @x @z @y @z @y @z @z
@ðP Þ where

¼0 !
@z X
ð1Þ ~ui ¼
Axij uj
Bxij vj
Cijx wj =Axii ;
i6¼j
Continuity equation: !
X
@u @v @w ~vi ¼
Byij vj
Ayij uj
Cijy wj =Byii ;
þ þ ¼ 0: ð2Þ i6¼j
@x @y @z !
X
Energy equation: ~i ¼
w
Cijz wj
Azij uj
Bzij vj =CiiZ ;
i6¼j



@T @T @T @T @ @T
qCP ¼ qCP u þv þw þ K the nodal pressure coefficients are defined as:
@t @x @y @z @x @x 0 1

 ; Z
@ @T @ @T
þ K þ ðK Þ þ g_c 2
Kiu ¼ @ Ni dV A=Axii ;
@y @y @z @z
V
ð3Þ 0 1
Z
where x, y, z are 3D coordinates and u, v, w are the Kiv ¼ @ Ni dV A=Byii ;
velocity components in the x, y, z directions. P, T, q and V
g denote pressure, temperature, density and viscosity, 0 1
Z
respectively.
Kiw ¼ @ Ni dV A=Ciiz ;
Cross-viscosity model has been used for the simula-
tions: V
 291

where Axij, Bxij, Cxij, Ayij, Byj , Cyij, Azij, Bzij, Czij represent global velocity field obtained by solving momentum equations
velocity coefficient matrices in the direction of x, y, z does not satisfy continuity equation. The velocities are
coordinate, respectively. Kui , Kvi , Kwi denote the nodal updated using the following relations:
pressure coefficients in the direction of x, y, z coordinate, Z Z
respectively. The nodal values for Kui , Kvi , Kwi are ob- 1 @P 1 @P
ui ¼ ~ui
x N dV vi ¼ ~vi
y N dV
tained by assembling the element-by-element contribu- Aii @x Bii @y
V V
tions in the conventional manner. Ni is element Z
interpolation and i means global node number and j is, 1 @P
wi ¼ w~i
z N dV :
for a node, the amount of the nodes around it. Cii @z
V

3.2 Pressure equation 3.5 The tracing of the flow fronts

Substitution of the velocity expressions (4) into discret- The flow of fluid in the cavity is unsteady and the
ized continuity equation, which is discretized using position of the flow fronts varies with time. Like in 2.5D
Galerkin method, yields element equation for pressure: model, in this paper, the control volume method is em-
Z 

 ployed to trace the position of the flow fronts after the
@Ni @Nk @Ni @Nk FAN (flow analysis network)[14]. But 3D control vol-
Nj Kju Pk þ Nj Kjv Pk
@x @x @y @y ume is a spacial volume and more complex than the 2D
V

 control volume. It is required that 3D control volumes
@Ni @Nk of all nodes fill the part cavity without gap and hollow
þ Nj Kjw Pk dV
Z
@z @z  space. Two 3D control volumes are shown in Fig. 1.
@Ni @Ni @Ni
¼ Nj ~uj þ Nj~vj þ Nj w~ j dV :
@x @y @z
V 4 Finite element calculations for the temperature field
The element pressure equations are assembled in the
The temperature field plays an important role during
conventional manner to form the global pressure equa-
injection molding process. Because the viscosity of the
tions.
polymer varies with its temperature, so the variation of
the temperature of polymer will have important influ-
ence to the injection molding process. Only after the
3.3 Boundary conditions
temperature field during filling has been calculated ex-
actly, the simulations for packing and cooling are
In the cavity wall, the no-slip boundary conditions are
meaningful. In 2.5D model, though the variation of the
employed, e.g.,
temperature in the gapwise direction is solved by FDM,
u ¼ v ¼ w ¼ 0; ~u ¼ ~v ¼ w
~ ¼ 0; Kiu ¼ Kiv ¼ Kiw ¼ 0 the model is based on the Hele–Shaw approximation,
which supposes the injection-molded parts are thin. As
on an inlet boundary, shown in Fig. 2, in 2.5D model, the triangular elements
u ¼ v ¼ w ¼ given Kiu ¼ Kiv ¼ Kiw ¼ 0: are meshed in the gapwise direction by creating finite
difference grids, and the temperature in flow plane is
represented by linear interpolation, and the tempera-
3.4 Velocity update tures in the gapwise direction are represented by FDM.
In 2.5D models, the velocity in the gapwise direction is
After the pressure field has been obtained, the velocity neglected, so only the thermal conduction item is con-
values are updated using new pressure field because the sidered in the gapwise direction. This paper gives a 3D

Fig. 1 3D control volumes.

a Control volume of an internal
node and b a boundary node
292

Thermal convection item and viscous heat item are

Fig. 2 Illustrative finite difference in the gapwise direction
anisotropic and has to do with the direction of flow. To
keep the numerical stability, the upwind method is em-
ployed to handle the convection item and viscous heat
item, e.g., only the contributions of the upriver elements
from the nodes are considered when the convection item
and viscous heat item are calculated.
In the above equations, the time T is discretized using
a forward-difference method:
nþ1
@Tj Tj
Tjn
¼ ;
@t Dt
where Dt denotes time step.
The element temperature equations are assembled in
the conventional manner to form the global temperature
equations. The overall procedure for pressure and tem-
perature calculations is relaxation iterative. Because the
pressure, velocity and temperature influence each other
during the calculation, the temperature and pressure are
coupled during the procedure.

model for calculating the temperature field which con- 5 Results and discussion
siders the influence of convection items on three
dimensions and suitable for the wider range of parts and The first test cavity and dimensions are shown in
has more exact results compared with the 2.5D models. Fig. 3a. The meshed 3D model of cavity is shown in
According to the energy equation (3), by the use of Fig. 3b. The selected material is ABS780 from Kumbo.
Galerkin’s method, the equation for the temperature The parametric constants corresponding to the n,s*,
field can be expressed as following: B,Tb and b of the five-constant cross-type viscosity
Z Z 
 model are 0.2638, 4.514 · 104 Pa, 3.13198043 ·
@T @T @T @T
N qCp dV ¼ N
qCp u þv þw 10
7 Pa S, 1.12236 · 104 K, 0.000Pa
1. Injection tem-
@t @x @y @z
perature is 45C, mold temperature is 250C, injection
V
 V

 
@ @T @ @T @ @T flow rate is 44.82 cu cm/s.
þ K þ K þ K þ g_c2 dV : ‘‘Fountain flow’’ is a typical flow phenomenon during
@x @x @y @y @z @z
filling. It has to do with the fluid near the center moving

Fig. 3 The test cavity. a The

cavity dimension and b the
meshed cavity

Fig. 4 Comparison between

predicted shapes of flow front
based on present 3D model (a)
and based on 2.5D model (b).
a Shape of 3D flow front and
b shape of 2.5D flow front

Fig. 5 The example cavity
Fig. 6 The meshed cavity
Fig. 7 The flow front at four
different filling times.
Time = 0.08, 0.36, 0.65 and
0.80 s
293
Table 1 Material properties
Index Material Unit Reference
property value
1 Density kg/m3 968.6
(q)
2 Specific J/kg K 1.70 · 103
heat (Cp)
3 Thermal W/(m K) 0.140
conduc-
tivity (K)
4 Cross-type
viscosity model
N 0.3783
B Pa s 1.0527 · 10
3
Tb K 9.3841 · 103
b 1/Pa 0
s Pa 1.955 · 103
faster than the average across the thickness and upon
catching up with the front, deflecting to move toward
the walls, so the shape of the flow front is round like the
fountain. In 2.5D models, the convection effects in the
fountain region cannot be represented and the details of
the fountain region are also lost, as shown in Fig. 4b. In
presented 3D model, this fountain flow phenomenon can
also be simulated. The round shape of the flow fronts at
three filling times is illustrated clearly in Fig. 4a.
Another example is typical of an industrial
application as shown in Fig. 5. The outline dimensions
of the cavity are 63.3 · 43.4 · 24.2 mm3 with a thick-
ness 4 mm. ‘‘ ’’ represents the location of entrance.
294
Fig. 8 Temperature field on the
plane Z = 13 in four filling
times. Time = 0.08, 0.36, 0.64
and 0.82 s
The meshed cavity is as in Fig. 6. The injection tem-
perature is 250C, mold temperature is 45C, injection
time is 0.82 s. The selected material is PS ASAHIPS 408.
The material properties and the parametric constants
corresponding to the five-constant cross-type viscosity
model are specified in Table 1.
Figure 7 shows the locations of flow fronts in four
different filling times. A complex 3D flow field develops
in the cavity and a rounded free surface is clearly seen. It
can be seen that the filling process of the melt in the
interior of the cavity can be predicted in the 3D model,
and it is crucial for predicting more exactly the locations
of the weldlines, the possibility of the air entrapments as
well as the pressure and temperature distributions,
especially for these cavities with complex geometry and
thick walls. Compared with the 2.5D model, which can
only simulate the flow of melt in the surface of the
cavity, 3D simulation model is suitable for the wider
range of cavities and has more exact results.
Figure 8 shows the temperature distributions on the
plane Z = 13 in four filling times. It can be seen that
there is a higher temperature in the interior of the cavity
and the lower temperature near the cavity walls. The
temperature near the entrance is even higher than the
injection temperature due to the viscous heating of the
melt: Figure 8 shows that a thermal layer is presented in
the filled portion of the cavity, in which there is a vari-
ation of temperature from wall to the interior of cavity.

It can be seen that the heat transfer is mainly driven by
convection and the conduction is rather small, so the
thermal layer is very thin. It can be seen that the tem-
perature distributions on the arbitrary section plane can
be seen clearly in the 3D model. On the contrary, in the
2.5D model, only the average temperature in the thick-
ness direction is shown on the middle-plane or the sur-
faces of the cavity, and for the thick or nonuniform-
thickness parts, which are not, suitable for the Hele–
Shaw approximation, the results from 2.5D model have
much error and even are mistakes.
6 Conclusion
A numerical model to simulate the filling of injection
molding based on a 3D finite element model is presented
in this paper. The 3D model uses the equal-order
velocity–pressure formulation method and a 3D control
volume scheme is adopted to track the flow front.
During calculating temperature field, the influence of
convection items in three directions is considered in or-
der to get more exact results and to apply to the wider
range of parts. Two parts have been employed as
example to test the validity. It has been seen that 3D
simulation model is suitable for the wider range of parts
and has more exact results compared with 2.5D models.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge finan-
cial support from the National Natural Science Foundation
Council of the People’s Republic of China, under Grant 20490220
and Research Foundation for PhD Candidates of Universities of
the People’s Republic of China (20020487032).
References
1. Gotoh Terumasa, Iizuka, Miyamoto Masayuki et al (1986)
Simulation of polymeric flows in the cavity filling process of
injection molding. Sharp Tech J 34:63–70
295
2. Schlichting H (1968) Boundary-layer theory. McGraw-Hill,
New York
3. Chen BS, Liu WH (1989) Numerical simulation and experi-
mental investigation of injection mold filling with melt solidi-
fication. Polym Eng Sci 29:1039–1050
4. Dequn L (2002) New progress of flow simulation for plastic
injection molding. China Int Forum Die Mould Technol 5:47–
48
5. Huamin Z, Dequn L (2002) Computer filling simulations of
injection molding based on 3D surface model. Polym Plast
Tech Eng 41:91–1021
6. Hiebert CA, Shen SF (1980) A finite-element/finite-difference
simulation of injection molding filling process. J Non-Newto-
nian Fluid Mesh 7:1–32
7. Inoue Y, Higashi T, Matsuoka T (1996) Numerical simulation
of 3-dimensional flow in injection molding. ANTEC Proc
1:744–748
8. Pichelin E, Coupez T (1998) Finite element solution of the 3D
filling problem for viscous incompressible fluid. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 163:359–371
9. Hwang CJ, Kwon TH (2002) A full 3D finite element analysis
of the powder injection molding filling process including slip
phenomena. Polym Eng Sci 42:33–50
10. Prakash C, Patankar SV (1985) A control volume-based finite-
element method for solving the Navier–Stokes equations using
equal-order velocity–pressure interpolation. Numer Heat
Transfer 8:259–280
11. Prakash C (1986) An improved control volume finite-element
method for heat and mass transfer, and for fluid flow using
equal-order velocity–pressure interpolation. Numer Heat
Transfer 9:253–276
12. Rice JG, Schnipe RJ (1986) An equal-order velocity–pressure
formulation that does not exhibit spurious pressure modes.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 58:135–149
13. Hieber CA (1987) Injection and compression molding funda-
mentals. Marcel Dekker, New York
14. Tadmor Z, Broyer E, Gutfinger C (1974). Flow analysis
method for solving flow problems in polymer processing.
Polym Eng Sci 14:660–665