Computational Flexible Mold Design for Complex Surfaces

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for reproducing objects with rich surface details, such as silicone mold casting, are labor-intensive and rely on skilled artisans for cut selection, lacking an efficient computational approach to design reusable flexible molds with optimal cut layouts.

Innovation Solution

A computational method that determines a verified cut layout for a reusable flexible mold by manipulating a closed surface mesh to ensure feasible strain levels, iteratively optimizing the cut layout to minimize the number and length of cuts, using simulation and mesh manipulation to evaluate and refine the cut layout based on material resilience and thickness.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual cut selection by skilled artisans is used, then mold feasibility is achieved, but labor intensity and time consumption increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemold feasibilityVSAvoiddesign efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The computational method enables the mold design system to automatically evaluate and optimize cut layouts without requiring skilled artisans. The system performs self-assessment of mold feasibility through simulation and automatic manipulation of mesh structures, replacing manual expert judgment with automated computational evaluation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces the manual mechanical process of cut selection and mold making with a computational simulation system. The simulation digitally evaluates strain distributions and mold feasibility, substituting the physical trial-and-error process with virtual modeling and automated optimization algorithms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Measurement precision

If computational simulation is used to evaluate mold feasibility, then design accuracy improves, but computational complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestrain evaluation accuracyVSAvoidcomputational system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The computational domain is divided into discrete mesh elements that can be independently evaluated for strain. This segmentation allows the complex simulation problem to be broken down into manageable computational units, enabling accurate strain evaluation while maintaining computational tractability through systematic processing of individual elements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary computational evaluation of multiple potential cut layouts before actual mold fabrication. By pre-assessing strain distributions and feasibility through simulation, the system identifies optimal designs in advance, avoiding the need for complex iterative adjustments during manufacturing and reducing overall computational burden.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If additional cuts are added to reduce strain, then mold reusability improves, but manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemold reusabilityVSAvoidcut layout complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically adjusts the parameters of the cut layout, including the number, position, and orientation of cuts, based on strain evaluation results. By dynamically changing these geometric parameters through computational optimization, the system finds the minimal set of cuts required to achieve acceptable strain levels and mold reusability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a feedback loop where strain evaluation results from simulation are used to automatically modify the cut layout. The system continuously refines the cut configuration based on feedback from strain analysis, adding or adjusting cuts only where necessary to reduce strain below threshold values, thereby optimizing manufacturability while ensuring mold reusability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

Enables the efficient production of multiple copies of objects with rich surface details using a reusable flexible mold, optimizing cut layouts for minimal strain and ease of extraction while maintaining mold integrity, facilitating the reproduction of complex shapes like sculptures.

Implementation Method 1

taking as an initial input at least one parameter indicating a feasible resilience of the flexible material of the mold

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElasticity: Elasticity

Data Source

PatentEP3301597B1Method for computationally designing a re-usable flexible mold
Publication Date: 2023.08.23 INST OF SCI & TECH AUSTRIA
  • EP3301597B1 patent drawingFigure 1~1e

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for computationally designing a re-usable flexible mold having a verified cut layout (Xf) for reproduction of objects (1) having rich surface details, wherein the mold is fillable with filling material, in particular resin, to form the object (1) to be reproduced within the mold, wherein the mold consists of flexible material, comprising the following steps: a) taking as an initial input a digital representation of a closed surface mesh (Mi) of the object (1) to reproduced, said initial closed surface mesh (Mi) being aligned with surface of the object (1) to be reproduced, said initial closed mesh (Mi) being partitioned into a set P comprising a plurality of initial patches (pi), whose boundaries provide a feasible initial cut layout (Xi), b) simulating the extraction process of the mold, wherein the simulation comprises - determining an extraction path of each patch (pi) and the forces applied therein on each patch (pi), and - calculating the maximum strain for each patch (pi) and comparing the maximum strain with a threshold, wherein threshold represents a maximum strain for a selectable material having a selectable wall thickness and c) verifying the extraction process based on step b) and providing the result of the verification as an output.