Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2005)
DOI 10.1007/s00170-004-2084-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Nagahanumaiah · B. Ravi · N.P. Mukherjee
An integrated framework for die and mold cost estimation
using design features and tooling parameters
Received: 5 August 2003 / Accepted: 6 January 2004 / Published online: 2 February 2005
 Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005
Abstract Tooling is an essential element of near net shape
manufacturing processes such as injection molding and die cast
ing, where it may account for over 25% of the total product
cost and development time, especially when order quantity is
small. Development of rapid and low cost tooling, combined
with a scientific approach to mold cost estimation and control,
has therefore become essential. This paper presents an integrated
methodology for die and mold cost estimation, based on the con
cept of cost drivers and cost modifiers. Cost drivers include the
geometric features of cavity and core, handled by analytical cost
estimation approach to estimate the basic mold cost. Cost mod
ifiers include tooling parameters such as parting line, presence
of side core(s), surface texture, ejector mechanism and die ma
terial, contributing to the total mold cost. The methodology has
been implemented and tested using 13 industrial examples. The
average deviation was 0.40%. The model is flexible and can be
easily implemented for estimating the cost of a variety of molds
and dies by customizing the cost modifiers using quality function
deployment approach, which is also described in this paper.
Keywords Cost estimation · Die casting · Injection molding ·
Quality function deployment
1 Introduction
Product life cycles today are typically less than half of those
in the 1980s, owing to the frequent entry of new products with
more features into the market. Manufacturing competitiveness is
Nagahanumaiah · N.P. Mukherjee
Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute,
Durgapur, India
B. Ravi (✉)
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai – 400 0076, India
E-mail: bravi@me.iitb.ac.in
Tel.: +91-22-2576 7510
Fax: +91-22-2572 6875
measured in terms of shorter lead-time to market, without sac
rificing quality and cost. One way to reduce the lead-time is by
employing near net shape (NNS) manufacturing processes, such
as injection molding and die casting, which involve fewer steps
to obtain the desired shape. However, the tooling (die or mold),
which is an essential element of NNS manufacturing, consumes
considerable resources in terms of cost, time and expertise.
A typical die casting die or plastic injection mold is made
in two halves: moving and fixed, which butt together during
mold filling and move apart during part ejection. The construc
tion of a typical cold chamber pressure die casting die is shown
in Fig. 1.
The main functional elements of the die and mold include
the core and cavity, which impart the desired geometry to the
incoming melt. These may be manufactured as single blocks or
built-up with a number of inserts. The secondary elements in
clude the feeding system, ejection system, side core actuators
and fasteners. The feeding system comprising of sprue bush,
runner, gate and overflow enables the flow of melt from ma
chine nozzle to mold cavity. The ejector mechanism is used for
ejecting the molded part from the core or cavity. All the above
elements are housed in a mold base set, comprising of support
blocks, guides and other elements. Part-specific elements, in
cluding core and cavity and feeding system are manufactured in
a tool room. Other elements are available as standard accessories
from vendors. Mold assembly and functional trials are conducted
by experienced toolmakers in consultation with tool designers.
The tooling industry is presently dominated by Japan, Ger
many, USA, Canada, Korea, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, Singapore
and India. The major users of tooling include automobiles, elec
tronics, consumer goods and electrical equipment sectors. Plastic
molds account for the major share of tooling industry. About
60% of tool rooms belong to small and medium scale industries
worldwide [1]. The tooling requirement is over US$ 600 mil
lion per year in India alone, with an annual growth rate of over
10% during the last decade. In India, the share of different types
of molds and dies is: plastic molds 33%, sheet metal punches
and dies 31%, die casting dies 13%, jigs & fixtures 13%, and
gauges 10% [2].
Fig. 1. Construction of a typical pressure die-
casting die
The tooling industry is increasingly facing the pressure to re
duce the time and cost of die and mold development, offer better
accuracy and surface finish, provide flexibility to accommodate
future design changes and meet the requirements of shorter pro
duction runs. To meet these requirements, new technologies like
high speed machining, hardened steel machining, process mod
eling, tooling design automation, concurrent engineering, rapid
prototyping and rapid tooling have been applied. For successful
operations and to maintain the competitive edge, it is necessary
to establish quantitative methods for cost estimation.
Our current research aims at developing a systematic and in
tegrated framework for development of rapid hard tooling (dies
and molds) for injection molding and pressure die-casting ap
plications. The necessity of a systematic cost estimation model
for comparative evaluation of different routes to tooling develop
ment motivated us to review the existing models, presented in the
next section, followed by our proposed methodology.
2 Previous work
There is considerable similarity in cost estimation approaches
used for product and tooling as reported in technical literature.
These approaches can be classified into five groups: intuitive,
analogical, analytical, geometric feature based and parametric
based methods, briefly reviewed here.
In the intuitive method, the accuracy of cost estimation de
pends on the cost appraiser’s experience and interpretations. The
estimation is usually performed in consultation with the tool
designer. The estimator acquires the wisdom and intuition con
cerning the costs through long association with die and mold
development. This method is still in practice in small workshops
and tool rooms.
In the analogical method, the cost of die and mold is esti
mated based on similarity coefficients of previous dies and molds
manufactured by the firm. In this technique, dies are coded con
sidering factors such as die size, die material, complexity, ejector
and gating mechanism. The appraiser starts by comparing the
new die design with the closest match among all previous de
signs. The basic hypotheses are: similar problems have similar
solutions, and reuse is more practical than problem solving from
scratch [3]. However, this approach, also referred to as case
based reasoning, requires a complete case base and an appro
priate retrieval system, which has not been reported for die and
mold cost estimation so far.
In the analytical cost estimation, the entire manufacturing
activity is decomposed into elementary tasks, and each task is
associated with an empirical equation to calculate the manu
facturing cost. For example, a common equation for machining
cost is
Machining cost = (cutting length / feed per minute)
× machine operation cost . (1)
Wilson (quoted in [4, Chap. 6, p. 121]) suggested a mathematical
model for incorporating a geometric complexity factor in turning
and milling operations, given by:
�
N  �
di
Complexity factor I = log2 , (2)
ti
i=1
where
di = i th dimension of feature
ti = corresponding dimensional tolerance
N = total number of dimensions .
This is explained with the help of an example later.
Another method called activity based costing (ABC) involves
applying the analytical method to all steps in manufacturing
a given product, to estimate the resources (material, labor and en
ergy) involved in each step. Such a detailed approach for various
processes, including casting has been developed by Creese [5]. In
tool rooms, this approach is used in the case of dies with complex
cavity geometry. The sources of mold cost can be divided into
three categories: mold base cost, functional elements (core, cav
ity inserts) cost and secondary elements cost. In each category,
the time needed to obtain the desired geometry by machining is
considered as a reference for costing [4]. As can be expected, es
tablishing and validating the costing equation, as well as using it
in practice, are cumbersome tasks.
In the feature based method, mold geometric features (cylin
der, slot, hole, rib, etc.) are used as the cost drivers. The die
manufacturing cost is then estimated using either empirical equa
tions or tools such as knowledge-based systems and artificial
neural networks. Chen and Liu [6] used the feature recognition
method to evaluate a new injection molded product design for its
cost effectiveness. They assumed that a product is an aggregation
of a set of features and feature relationships. These feature rela
tionships were mapped to convert a part feature into mold related
cost evaluations. Chin and Wong [7] used decision tables linked
to a knowledge base to estimate injection mold cost.
In the parametric cost estimation, technical, physical or func
tional parameters are used as basis for cost evaluation. This
method allows one to proceed from technical values character
izing the product (available with design engineers) to economic
data. Sundaram and Maslekar [8] used regression model ap
proach in injection mold cost estimation. Lowe and Walshe [9]
used labor involvement in injection mold making as a reference;
mold cost was estimated using linear regression analysis.
To summarize, cost similarity and cost functions (cost fac
tors) are the two sets of methods for estimating the mold cost.
In the first set, similarity between a new mold and a previ
ous mold developed in the tool rooms is used as a reference.
Intuitive and analogical methods fall under this category. In the
widely used intuitive method, the cost appraiser may not be in
a position to identify all the risk factors and to quantify many of
them. The analogical method can be successfully used for esti
mating the cost of die bases and other secondary elements where
grouping is much easier. However, in the case of functional elem
ents (core and cavity), grouping becomes a difficult task as their
geometry, machining sequence and tolerance greatly vary with
product design.
In the second set of methods, the dependency between the
mold cost and its drivers are expressed in mathematical func
tions. Analytical method, activity based costing, feature based
method and parametric costing methods falls under this cate
gory. While analytical methods are well established for esti
mating the machining cost of simple parts, they are difficult to
apply in die and mold manufacturing because of their geometric
complexity. Similarly, feature based cost estimation is difficult
to apply because the current feature recognition and classifi
cation algorithms cannot handle freeform surfaces present in
most of the dies and molds, and other computational techniques
like knowledge-based systems, fuzzy logic and artificial neural
networks may be required to establish the cost relations. Fur
ther, these techniques may not be able to consider the impact
of assembly restrictions, surface finish requirements, mold trials
and other factors. The parametric costing method functions like
a black box, by correlating the total cost of mold with a limited
number of design parameters, and it is difficult to justify or ex
plain the results.
Menges and Mohren [10] developed an integrated approach
for injection mold cost estimation, in which similar injection
molds and structural components of the same kind are grouped
together and a cost function for each group is determined. The
cost components are grouped into cavity, mold base, basic func
tional elements and special functional elements. Machining cost
for cavity and EDM electrodes is driven by machining time and
hourly charges adjusted by factors like machining procedure,
cavity surface, parting line, surface quality, fixed cores, toler
ances, degree of difficulty and number of cavities. The mold
bases are assumed to be standard components. Cost of basic
functional elements like sprue, runner systems, cooling systems
and ejector systems are estimated on a case to case basis. The
cost of special functional elements like side cores, three-plate
mold, side cams and unscrewing devices is determined based
on actual expenses. One of the limitations is that the machining
time estimate based on mean cavity depth may not give accurate
results in case of complex shaped molds that require different
modes of machining like roughing, finishing and leftover mate
rial machining, due to cutting tool size and geometry constraints,
orientations and settings. Secondly, the work does not appear to
consider machining cost for secondary surfaces (particularly in
case of built-in type cavities or cores), cost implications of mold
material (which directly affects cutting tool selection and ma
chining time), secondary operations on standard mold bases (to
accommodate cavities, side cores and accessories, special ejector
mechanisms and hot runners etc.), and some cushion in cost esti
mation to take care of additional work during final machining of
mating parts.
This approach uses more than 15–20 analytical models with
an average 5–8 variables, which need to be statistically estab
lished, and offers research opportunities.
In general, all of above approaches give relatively accu
rate estimates only when tool rooms are involved in develop
ing a single type of mold (such as injection molds or pressure
die casting dies). Die and mold manufacturing is still regarded
as skill and experience oriented manufacturing, and moreover
it is not repetitive in nature. Thus there is a need to develop
a generic die and mold cost estimation model that can be eas
ily implemented for different types of molds and complexity,
and is also flexible to accommodate the decisions of the cost
appraiser. We propose a cost model to meet the above require
ments, based on the notion of cost drivers and cost modifiers.
Cost drivers depend on geometry and machining time. Cost mod
ifiers depend on complexity, and can be customized using a qual
ity function deployment approach, which is also discussed in
this paper.
3 Framework for die and mold cost estimation
The cost components of a typical injection molded automo
tive part (assuming a die life of 250,000 parts) are given in
Fig. 2 [11]. It shows that mold cost (41%) has a much larger
 method, act as cost drivers. The manufacturing methods 1D,
2D, etc., represent the simultaneous movement of tool or work
piece with respect to axis X, Y , Z, a, b and c, to get the de
sired geometry. The relative cost for feature manufacturing (ba
sic mold cost) is proposed based on our experience. This is
useful when sufficient mold design and cost data are not avail
able. More precise cost estimation can be assured by integrat
ing analytical costing methods with machined features in later
stages.
The manufacturing cost of mold geometry can be calculated
by Eq. 1 using predetermined machining parameters like feed per
minute (S) and machine hour rate. The summation of machining
cost of all features gives the basic mold cost:

�
n  �
Fig. 2. Cost break up of a typical injection molded automotive part [11] L f  �
Basic mold cost C f = I f M f , (3)
S
f =1

share of total cost and therefore must be estimated accurately. where,

Molds for other applications (pressure die casting, forging,
sheet metal tools, etc.) also reflect a similar breakup. The mold
cost comprises mold material, mold design and manufacturing.
Among these mold-manufacturing costs represents the largest
share and is the focus of our work. The structure of the pro
posed mold cost estimation model is shown in Fig. 3. In this
approach, all geometric features are mapped to machining fea
tures, which are used as cost drivers and their cost is obtained
by the analytical costing method. Other factors affecting the
complexity of the die and mold are considered as cost modi
fiers. Hereafter, the term mold will be used to represent both die
and mold.
3.1 Cost drivers: core and cavity features
In feature based design, a part is constructed, edited and ma
nipulated in terms of geometric features (such as hole, slot,
rib and boss) with certain spatial and functional relationships.
The part features are used for generating mold cavity features;
Table 1 shows the feature mapping between part and mold. The
mold features are analyzed to identify the geometric dimen
sions, manufacturing processes and relative manufacturing cost.
Essentially, the size and shape complexity of mold cavity fea
tures, which in turn influence the selection of the manufacturing
L f = Total cutting length of feature ( f = 1 to n)
S = Corresponding feed (mm/min)
M f = Corresponding machine minute rate (hour rate /60)
I f = Machining complexity factor I
n = number of features .
While calculating the machining complexity factor for cost
estimation purposes, it is not necessary to consider all dimen
sions of a feature (the process engineer will select the manu
facturing process and corresponding machine considering the
geometry as well as tolerance of primary dimension). The ma
chine hour rate already considers these effects. There are other
factors like the number of settings, number of tooling and their
sequence, which are again dependent on geometric complexity
(number of surfaces and their orientation and special relation
ships). We therefore modified Eq. 1 by introducing a machining
process constant “K ”. The value of K varies from 0.05 for plain
turning to 0.5 for EDM and machine polishing processes.
Thus machining complexity factor of a feature is given by:
 
di
I f = K log2 . (4)
ti

Table 1. Part to tooling feature mapping and relative cost

Part Round boss Round hole Outside Tapered Square hole Square boss L-shape Straight ribs Inclined BSpline/
features Concave boss boss ribs NURBS

Mold Round hole Round pin Convex Tapered Square Square L-shape Grooves/ Inclined BSpline/
features cavity hole protrusion cavity cavity channels groove NURBS
Dimen- D x L D x L R x L x W D/d x L L x B x W L x B x W L /l x W L x B x W L /l x W Cutting area
sions (D x L)
Mfg Milling/ Turning/ Milling EDM Milling Milling + Milling + Milling + EDM 3D Milling +
Process EDM Drilling EDM EDM EDM EDM
Mfg method 1D 1D 2D 2D 2D 2D + 1D 2D + 1D 2D + 1D 2D 3D / 5D
Relative Cost 1 1 3 4 2 8 6 4 8 10
Fig. 3. Structure of the proposed die and mold cost estimation model

For example, consider a circular hole feature with diameter consider only the depth that is, 16±0.010 . Reaming operation is
20+0.018 mm and depth 16±0.010 mm. In this case, diameter 20 normally performed in either CNC vertical machining center or
is a primary dimension and tolerance 18 µm can be achieved a jig-boring machine. The number of settings is one, and the
by the reaming operation. Therefore, it becomes necessary to number of tooling is four (center drill, pilot drill, final drill and
Table 2. Cost impact of side core com
plexity (γc ) Die construction complexity Injection molds Pressure die casting dies
Side core Extra cavity Side cores Extra cavity
γc γcv γc γcv

Uncomplicated parts without cores 0 2.5 % 0 5%

Parts with some complexity, often without 3–5% 5.0 % 5–10% 8%
cores or with few cores
Complex parts, often with one or several 5–10% 7.5% 10–15% 11%
cores that move in the same direction
Very complex parts with cores in several 10–25% 10% 15–30% 15%
directions

machine reamer). Therefore, the machining process constant is manufacturability and aesthetic issues. A complex parting sig
considered as 0.2. Hence the machining complexity of the above nificantly increases the manufacturing cost due to increase in
feature is given by: machining complexity (because of cutting tool geometry con
  straints) and die assembly time. A non-planar parting surface
16 makes it difficult to match the two halves. Often it results in
I f = 0.2 log2 = 1.93 .
0.020 re-machining, which is not quantifiable by feature based ap
proach. To consider these uncertainties, die parting surface
complexity is divided into three levels: straight, stepped and
3.2 Cost modifiers: Die complexity factors freeform parting surfaces. Straight parting surface will not im
pose any additional cost, however the cost implications of
In die and mold manufacturing, there are many die complexity steeped and freeform parting surface will 10–20% and 20–
factors that have a significant impact on the total cost and are 40%, respectively. This can also be customized as discussed in
considered as cost modifiers. These include parting surface com a later section.
plexity, presence of side cores, surface finish and texture, ejector
mechanism and die material. Their values, established from our
3.2.2 Presence of side cores
experience, are given in Tables 2–4, as a percentage of the ba
sic mold cost (derived from Eq. 3). These are explained in detail The product geometry may comprise a number of undercuts to
here. the line of draw, hindering its removal from the die and mold.
This is overcome by the use of side cores, which slide in such
3.2.1 Parting surface complexity a way that they get disengaged from the molded part before its
ejection. Side cores need secondary elements like guide ways,
Selection of the most appropriate parting surface is an im
cams and hydraulic-pneumatic actuators, which impose an addi
portant activity in die and mold design. Many researchers
tional cost. If product geometry calls for a number of side cores
have reported different algorithms to identify a parting sur
that are actuated in different directions, then die size and cost
face considering the ejection of part from die cavity, ease of
will increase significantly. Aggravated by additional die cooling
arrangements, increased mold assembly time and finish machin
ing during assembly, which may not be easily quantifiable. While
Table 3. Cost impact of surface finishing (γ p ) the cost of side cores machining is already considered in cost
drivers, their influence on over all die complexity due to addi
Type of surface finish Cost modifier γ p
tional accessories, and secondary machining is considered here.
The corresponding values for this cost modifier (γc ) are given in
Surface finish Ra > 0.8 µm 5–10%
Surface finish Ra < 0.8 µm 10–18% Table 2 based on our experience.
Surface texturing by EDM 15–25%
Surface texturing by etching 20–35%
3.2.3 Surface finish and texture

The die surface is usually polished to obtain surface roughness

Table 4. Cost impact of ejector mechanism (γe )
Ra from 0.2 to 0.8 µm. Some surface textures may be added
Type of ejectors Cost modifier γe to injection-molded parts to increase the aesthetic look or some
functional requirement. This requires specialized processes like
Round ejector pins / blades 1–5%
EDM texturing, photo etching and surface treatment, increasing
Stripper plate, sleeve ejections 5%
the toolmaker’s job. Therefore, polishing and texturing impose
Self screwing mechanism 5–10%
additional cost, and the values for this cost modifier (γ p ) are
Hydraulic-pneumatic ejectors 10–15%

listed in Table 3 based on our experience.

3.2.4 Ejection mechanism
The mechanism for ejecting a part from its mold or die may com
prise a simple ejector pin or cam operated mechanism, or a com
plex hydraulic-pneumatic actuator. Construction of the ejector
mechanism depends on the part geometry and the desired rate of
production. In addition, ejector design may lead to a larger die
size to accommodate the sliders, cams, actuators, etc. The ejec
tor materials are usually of special grade, requiring hardening
and nitriding treatments. Therefore, the ejector mechanism adds
to the total cost depending on its type. The values for this cost
modifier (γe ) are given in Table 4.
3.2.5 Die and mold material
The die and mold material should have good mechanical proper
ties like high hardness, low thermal distortion, high compressive
strength and manufacturability. Commonly used tool steels for
injection molds and pressure die casting dies include P20, P18,
EN-24, A3, D1, D2, H11 and H13, which are more expensive
than general steels. The die material cost is directly based on the
volume of die inserts (considered in the total cost model). The
die material also affects the feature manufacturing cost, because
of its impact on cutting tool life. A recent development is high
speed machining of hardened die steel, which shows significant
improvement in accuracy and surface finish. Based on an aver
age of ten case studies carried out at our center, the die material
factor (γm ) can increase the basic mold cost by 2–10%, for die
materials ranging from carbon steel to hot die steel.
3.3 Total cost model
The total cost model for die or mold manufacturing is determined
by taking the basic feature machining cost and modifying it using
various die complexity parameters, then adding the cost of sec
ondary elements and other activities.
Total mold cost = die material cost
+ (basic mold cost × cost modifiers × number of cavities)
+ (Standard mold base cost × assembly factor)
+ secondary element cost + tool design and tryout charges.
 
� n  �
L f
Mc = Cm +  I f Mf 
Sf
f =1
 
γ ps + γc + γ p + γe + γm
× 1 + nc
100
Cs = Secondary element cost including ejector, sprue, guides
and screws
Cd = Tool design and tryout cost = 15 − 25% of total mold
manufacturing cost
γ ps = Cost modifier due to parting surface complexity
γc = Cost modifier due to side cores
γ p = Cost modifiers due to polishing and surface texturing
γe = Cost modifiers due to ejector mechanism
γm = Cost modifiers due to material machining characteristics
γa = Cost modifiers for assembly preparation.
The factor γa includes material handling and additional labor
cost, and varies from 5–20% depending on the die size.
4 Establishing the cost modifiers
As seen from Tables 2–4, the impact of various factors on the
total cost of a die or mold cost is significant. While the values
given in the above tables are based on our experience, they can
not be justified in other tool rooms, unless they have a large case
base to verify the same. The cost modifiers must therefore be
customized for an individual tool room.
One way to customize the cost modifiers is by using multiple
regression analysis. This involves collecting historical data and
establishing the regression coefficient or cost estimating rela
tionships (CERs). However, the CERs established in commercial
tool rooms may not simulate the real situation, since such tool
rooms manufacture a large variety of dies and molds, and a huge
amount of historical data would be required for computation.
We propose another approach, based on quality function de
ployment (QFD) for establishing the cost modifiers, to overcome
the above limitation.
This QFD-based cost model is project specific, and estab
lishes the cost factors by considering the different tooling param
eters. The user has to assess the impact of tooling parameters
(parting surface complexity, surface finish, etc.) by considering
basic mold cost as a reference. This improves the accuracy of total
cost estimation. Table 5 explains the tooling parameters and their
associated cost factors considered in developing the QFD-based
cost model. The steps involved in the methodology are as follows:
1. Identify major tooling parameters other than basic die and
mold feature manufacturing.
2. Categorize the tooling parameters into different complexity
levels (columns of QFD).
 γa
3. Identify cost elements other than basic mold manufacturing
+ Cb 1 + + Cs + Cd (5) cost (rows of QFD).
100
4. Represent the importance of these cost elements in percent
where, age of basic mold cost. For example, parting surface machin
ing cost is about 10% of basic mold cost, and hence 0.1 is
Cm = Die material cost
used as cost appraiser’s preference.
n c = Number of cavities 5. Develop the relationship matrix considering the complexity,
Cb = Standard mold base cost using 1–9 scale (1 = weak, 3 = medium, 9 = strong)
Table 5. Major tooling parameters and associated cost factors and development was relatively difficult as the part consists of
a number of small geometric features and split parting surface.
Sr. No. Tooling parameter Cost factors A combination of CNC and EDM processes are used to manu
facture core and cavity die inserts in H13 material. Mold bases,
1 Parting surface complexity Parting surface machining cost
Die assembly cost
ejectors and screws are purchased from standard vendors.
Re-machining cost
2 Presence of side core Mold housing machining cost 5.1 Basic mold manufacturing cost
Accessories preparation cost
Die assembly cost
A CAD model of the casting was used as input to design the die.

3 Surface texture and finish Finish machining / polishing cost

Surface treatment cost
To estimate the basic mold cost, the mold machining features and

4 Ejector mechanism Ejector material / std cost

the corresponding processes were first identified. Then the fea-

Machining & assembly charges ture machining cost was estimated using Eq. 3. The feature and

5 Die material condition Heat treatment cost its critical dimensions di (i th dimension of feature) and corres

Cutting tool cost ponding dimensional tolerance ti (dimensional tolerance of i th

dimension) were considered in calculating the complexity factor.

The results are shown in Table 6. The following rates were used

6. Construct the correlation matrix using 0.1–1.0 scale (0.1 = (in Indian Rupees; 1 INR ≈ US$ 0.02):

weak, 0.3 = medium, 0.9 = strong)

7. Normalize the relationship matrix using the Wasserman Turning operation: M f = INR 400/hr (CNC lathe)

method. The coefficient of the normalized matrix is given by 3D Milling operation: M f = INR 700/hr

the following equation [12]:

(CNC machining center)


m
2D milling operation: M f = INR 120/hr (conventional milling)

(ri. j · γk. j )
ri. norm =
k=1
, (6) EDM operations: M f = INR 250/hr

j 
m 
m
(ri. j · γ j.k )
Wire cut EDM: M f = INR 400/hr

j=1 k=1
Jig boring: M f = INR 300/hr .

where
ri. j = coefficient of relationship matrix
γ j.k = coefficient of correlation matrix . 5.2 Cost modifiers

8. Calculate the technical importance of each tooling parameter.
9. The technical importance values can be used as respective
cost modifiers.
The entire methodology for die and mold cost estimation is
illustrated with an industrial example in Sect. 5.
5 Industrial example
Figure 4 shows an aluminum part used in ceiling fans, along with
the corresponding die inserts. The fan component is produced
using cold chamber pressure die casting process. The die design
The main complexity characteristics of the die considered in this
example are as follows:
• Straight parting surface (simple)
• Circular cavity split on both sides (chances of mismatching)
• 12 ejector pins (diameter minimum 3 mm, maximum 8 mm)
• Die material H13 (needs hardening and tempering, hard to
machine)
• Surface finish Ra < 0.4 µm (needs polishing)
• Number of side cores: Nil
• Number of core pins: 12 + 1 (alignment is critical).
The QFD model was developed as discussed in Sect. 4. The
eight cost elements are represented in the first column of the

Fig. 4. Pressure diecast component and die inserts

Table 6. Basic mold cost (using Eq. 3)

Tooling Mold features Num. of Machining Cutting Complexity Mfg

element (Cost drivers) features method L f /S f factor (I f ) cost

Cavity Circular cavity (female) 1 CNC Turning 22400/160 1.3 1213

Circular hole for core pin 3 Jig boring 3000/100 1.4 630
Central hole for core insert 1 CNC Turning 2000/160 1.4 116
Gates (feeding + overflow) 7 EDM 0.9/0.01 1.5 984
Grove (circular) 1 Turning 1800/100 1.8 216
Core Circular core (male) 1 Turning 25820/120 1.5 2151
Central stepped hole 1 Turning 1200/80 1.2 120
Ribs 6 CNC Milling 300/60 1.3 455
Blind holes 12 Milling 100/60 1.2 280
Ribs (small) 12 EDM 3/0.01 1.0 15000
Land 1.6 mm depth 6 EDM 1.6/0.01 1.0 4000
Ejector pin hole 18 Jig boring (reaming) 100/20 1.4 630
Runner 1 CNC Milling 3923/180 1.2 305
Overflows pocket 6 Milling 3056/150 1.0 1426
Core pins Circular rods 6 CNC Turning 720/60 1.4 672
Cavity pins Circular rods 6 CNC Turning 745/60 1.4 695
Actual manufacturing cost of functional parts (core, cavity and core pins/inserts) 28893
Miscellaneous operations (blank preparation, reference plane machining, surface grinding) 5778
= 20% of actual machining cost
Basic Mold Cost 34671

Note: Cutting length L f for different operations are given by the following:
Turning = Length of turning × number of cuts
Milling = Length of feature × (width/step over) number of cut
Jig boring = Feed length (depth of bore)
EDM = depth of pocket to be finished
Wire cut EDM = total travel length

QFD model shown in Table 7. The decisions of the cost ap cost modifiers were calculated by adding the coefficients of the
praiser are represented in the second column, in terms of per respective column.
centages of basic mold cost. For example, cost appraiser’s as The impact of various tooling parameters (cost modifiers) on
sessment for parting plane and associated machining is 10% total mold cost is given below:
of basic mold cost; and for housing machining cost to accom
modate functional elements (core and cavity) it is 9%. The Parting surface factor (γ ps ) = 5.8%

die design complexity was analyzed and the cost implications Ejector mechanism factor (γe ) = 18.4%

of the individual parameter were rated using the 1–9 scale to

Core pins factor (γc ) = 13.6%

complete the relationship matrix. To keep the calculations sim

ple, the correlation matrix was not considered. Table 8 repre Polishing factor (γ p ) = 14.1%

sents the normalized relationship matrix of QFD. The different Die material factor (γm ) = 17.8% .

Table 7. QFD before normalization

Cost modifier
Cost elements Percentage Straight Ejector Few core Surface Die material
cost w.r.t. parting design pins in finish condition
Basic mold cost surface 12 pins both halves Ra < 0.8

Parting plane machining 0.10 1 3 3 1

Re-machining 0.08 3 3 3 9
Housing machining 0.09 1 9 3 1
Polishing 0.15 1 3 9 9
Heat treatment 0.06 9 9 3 9
Cutting tool 0.05 1 3 3 9
Die assembly 0.10 1 9 3 3
Mold trial & rectification 0.07 1 3 3
Table 8. QFD after normalization

Cost modifier
Cost elements Percentage Straight Ejector Few core Surface Die material
cost w.r.t. parting design pins in finish condition
Basic mold cost surface 12 pins both halves Ra < 0.8

Parting plane machining 0.10 0.125 0.375 0.375 0.125

Re-machining 0.08 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.500
Housing machining 0.09 0.071 0.642 0.214 0.071
Polishing 0.15 0.045 0.136 0.409 0.409
Heat treatment 0.06 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3
Cutting tool 0.05 0.062 0.187 0.187 0.562
Die assembly 0.10 0.062 0.562 0.187 0.187
Mold trial & rectification 0.07 0.142 0.428 0.428
Cost importance 0.058 0.184 0.136 0.141 0.178

5.3 Total mold cost 6. Final die and mold cost estimation using Eq. 5.
7. Listing quoted, actual and estimated costs (Table 9). The
The calculations of total mold cost are given below (in Indian quoted cost is based on the tool designer’s experience. The
Rupees; 1 INR ≈ US$ 0.02): actual cost is accounted from operator’s machine logbook
1. Die material cost: Cm = INR 26325 (approximately 135 kg records and manpower schedule. The estimated cost is deter
@ INR 195/kg) mined from the cost model.
2. Basic mold manufacturing cost = INR 34671 (see Table 6) 8. Calculation of deviations for comparative evaluation.
3. Mold base cost: Cb = INR 58000 (mold base set was pur
chased from vendors). Assume mold base preparation cost The cost deviations of the two methods, intuitive method
γa = 5% of base cost (used for quotation purpose) and the proposed cost model, were
4. Secondary elements cost = Cs (screws and ejectors) = calculated and compared (Fig. 5). The average deviation of es
INR 10200 timated cost from actual cost is found to be 0.4% for the pro
5. Tool design charge Cd ≈ 15% of basic manufacturing cost = posed cost model compared to 2.5% for the intuitive method.
INR (26325 + 34671 + 58000 +10200) × 0.15 = INR 19379. The maximum deviations are 2.5% for the proposed model com
Therefore, total mold cost using Eq. 5 is given by: pared to 16% for the intuitive method. An additional exercise

  was to study the effect of overall complexity of the molds
5.8 + 18.4 + 13.6 + 14.1 + 17.8
Mc = 26325 + 34671 1 + on cost deviation. For this purpose, the examples were sorted
100
  in the ascending order of their overall complexity as follows:
5
+ 58000 1 + + 10200 + 19379
100 Case numbers:
= 26325 + 58836 + 60900 + 10200 + 19376
1 − 2 − 3 − 4 − 11 − 12 − 8 − 9 − 10 − 6 − 5 − 7 − 13
= INR 175,637 .
Simple −→ Complex

6 Validation of the cost model

The cost model developed in this work was validated by using
it for 13 industrial cases, including 7 injection molds, 3 pres
sure die casting dies, 2 wax molds and a compression mold. All
these were developed at the Central Mechanical Engineering Re
search Institute in India in the last four years. The methodology
followed in each cases included:
1. Identification of part features.
2. Feature mapping: converting part features into mold features
and then machining features.
3. Basic mold cost estimation using Eq. 3.
4. Customization of cost modifiers using QFD model as dis
cussed in Sect. 4.
5. Estimation of mold base cost (Cb ), secondary elements cost
(Cs ) and core and cavity material cost (Cm ). Fig. 5. Cost deviation comparison
Table 9. Results for different case studies (costs in India Rupees)

Type of die / Case Product / die Quoted Actual cost Cost Percentage of deviation
mold Description price (accounted) model
estimate
Q A E (1 − Q/ A) ∗ 100 (1 − E/ A) ∗ 100

Injection 1 4-cavity IM for 50,000 48,300 46,520 −3.51 3.68

molds (IM) terminal block 1
2 4-cavity IM for 50,000 46,234 46,400 −8.14 −0.35
terminal block 2
3 4-cavity IM for 50,000 53,000 52,700 5.66 0.56
terminal block 3
4 2-cavity IM for 50,000 52,800 48,830 5.30 7.51
terminal block 4
5 44-cavity IM for 2,00,000 1,93,500 1,82,000 −3.35 5.94
cable ties (150I)
6 36-cavity IM for 2,00,000 1,86,000 1,84,650 −7.52 0.72
cable ties (200I)
7 Single cavity IM for 2,50,000 2,40,300 2,38,000 −4.03 0.95
pump impeller
Pressure die 8 Single cavity PDC die 1,30,000 1,25,000 1,25,500 4.00 −0.4
casting (PDC) dies for fan cover type-I
9 Single cavity PDC die 1,35,000 1,28,450 1,32,400 −5.09 −3.07
for fan cover type 2
10 Single cavity PDC die 1,70,000 1,74,000 1,75,637 2.29 −0.94
for top cover
Wax injection 11 2-cavity wax mold 35,000 33,650 36,200 −4.01 −7.57
molds for rear sight
12 Single cavity wax 45,000 46,100 44,890 2.38 2.62
mold for bracket
Rubber 13 Split mold for face 2,30,000 1,98,000 2,06,600 −16.16 −4.34
compression piece of rubber
mold oxygen mask
Mean deviation −2.47 −0.40

It is seen from Fig. 5 that the proposed model gives better
results than the intuitive method for complex molds, in which ac
curate cost estimations are more important owing to the higher
costs involved. The proposed cost model also appears to be more
flexible, and can be easily customized to individual tool room
practices by establishing their own ratings for cost modifiers.
7 Conclusion
Die and mold development procedure varies from part to part and
is not very well documented. The conventional cost estimation
methods depend on the experience of the toolmaker and may not
yield realistic estimates, especially when die complexity is high.
In this work, feature based approach, activity based costing and
parametric costing methods were integrated to develop a hybrid
die and mold cost estimation model. This cost model is flexible
and project specific, yet easy to apply. A quality function deploy
ment approach has been proposed for customizing the tooling
cost modifiers. This enables incorporating the experience of the
cost appraiser as well project-specific complexity indicators. The
proposed cost model has been validated on 13 industrial exam
ples, including injection molds and pressure die casting dies. The
average deviation was only 0.40% and the maximum deviation
was 7.6%.
The proposed cost model forces a systematic approach,
which may be difficult to implement in smaller tool rooms. Sec
ondly, feature identification and complexity rating for customiz
ing the cost modifiers require some expertise and experience.
Integrating a computerized database of previous cases, along
with automated feature recognition can overcome the above lim
itations and also enhance the efficiency of the proposed cost
model. This is presently being investigated.
Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge the Tool and
Gauge Manufacturers Association (TAGMA), Mumbai, India for sharing
the information on status of Indian die and mold manufacturing industries.
The cooperation of the staff of Manufacturing Technology Group, Cen
tral Mechanical Engineering Research Institute Durgapur in die and mold
development and establishing the machining process constant is also ac
knowledged.
References
1. Fallbohmer P, Altan T, Tonshoff HK, Nakagawa T (1996) Survey of the
die and mold manufacturing industry: practices in Germany, Japan and
United States. J Mater Process Technol 59:156–168
2. Tool and Gauge Manufacturers Association (2000) Study on the Indian
tool room industry: 2000 survey report. Tool and Gauge Manufacturers
Association, Mumbai
3. Duverlie PJ, Castelain M (1999) Cost estimation during design step:
parametric method versus case based reasoning method. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 15:895–906
4. Charles SS (1999) The manufacturing advisory service: web based
process and material selection. Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley
5. Creese RC, Adithan M, Pabla BS (1992) Estimating and costing for the
metal manufacturing industries. Dekker, New York
6. Chen YM, Liu JJ (1999) Cost effective design for injection molding.
Robot Comput Integr Manuf 15:1–21
7. Chin KS, Wong TN (1996) Developing a knowledge based injection
mold cost estimation system by decision tables. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
nol 11:353–365
8. Sundaram M, Maslekar D (1999) A regression model for mold cost
estimation. Proceedings of 8th Industrial Engineering Research Confer
ence, Phoenix, Arizona, 1999
9. Lowe PH, Walshe KBA (1985) Computer aided tool cost estimating:
an evaluation of the labor content of injection molds. Int J Product Res
23(2):371–380
10. Menges G, Paul M (1993) Procedure for estimating mold cost.
In: How to make injection molds, 2nd edn. Hanser, Munich,
pp 71–88
11. Altan T, Lilly B, Yen YC (2001) Manufacturing of dies and molds. Ann
CIRP 50(2):535:555
12. Fiorenzo F (2001) Advanced quality function deployment. St. Lucie
Press, New York