Motion, load path and connection
Compare working stroke, force bases, datums, rod or plate positions, mating geometry, coupling/return method and access on current drawings.
G18
CLAMP UNIT / EJECTION INTERFACE
Treat ejector stroke, force, connection and part removal as one controlled interface.
Pair mold demand with the configured machine and cell: working stroke, force basis, ejector pattern or coupling, forward/back evidence, part release, robot handoff and a safe acceptance record.
ANSWER FIRST
Stroke and force are limits—not compatibility evidence.
The buyer needs a revision-controlled comparison between the mold-required working motion and load, the configured machine capability, the physical connection and the complete part-removal sequence. Keep unknown demand, geometry or handoff states open rather than converting a catalogue maximum into a fit decision.
Keep ejection inside the complete mold-fit reviewEjector-interface release gate
- Identified machine, mold, part and removal method
- Separate required and available stroke/force records
- Approved rod, pattern, load path and coupling detail
- Defined release, robot handoff and fault states
- Safe acceptance evidence and closed deviations
TWO LINKED REVIEWS
Mechanical fit releases the motion; cell evidence releases the handoff.
Do not merge mold demand, machine maximums and robot signals into one unsupported “compatible” answer.
Release, removal and verified return
Define the part/runner release condition, removal clearance, robot or handling states, fault ownership and evidence required before the next machine movement.
RFQ / INTERFACE REGISTER
Twelve fields make the ejector interface comparable and testable.
Keep the mold-required value and the proposed-machine value in separate columns with source, revision and approval status.
| Field | Record for the proposed machine and mold | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Interface identity | Machine and clamping-unit configuration, mold, moving-side assembly, molded part, ejector option, robot or handling device and every drawing revision | Controlled machine, platen, mold and cell drawings with named owners and revision status |
| Mold ejection concept | How the mold designer intends the part and runner to release, which mold assembly moves and which assumptions were used | Mold engineering record, ejector concept and current mold-function documentation |
| Required working stroke | Required mold-ejector travel, measurement datums, start/end positions, permitted setup range and source status | Dimensioned mold section or motion drawing plus calculation, simulation or representative trial basis |
| Available machine stroke | Configured machine-ejector travel, programmable or mechanical limits, position reference and any option dependency | Current supplier data, configured drawing and written confirmation for the proposed machine |
| Required force basis | Mold-side force demand, direction and position through the intended stroke, with measured, calculated or estimated status | Toolmaker or responsible engineer record with assumptions, method, revision and approval owner |
| Available machine force | Configured ejector-force basis, applicable direction and operating conditions, plus any stated limit or option boundary | Supplier-confirmed technical data and the acceptance method for the identified configuration |
| Ejector pattern and load path | Machine rod or plate positions, mold contact points, central or off-center arrangement, datums, clearances and load-transfer path | Overlay of the machine platen/ejector drawing and mold moving-side drawing |
| Rod, bolt or coupling | Selected connection method, component identities, thread or mating geometry, engagement, release method, access and change responsibility | Released interface detail and current component instructions; no assumed cross-machine coupling fit |
| Return and position evidence | Required forward/back states, return method, end-position detection or confirmation and the fault response expected by the cell | Configured control description, signal list and safe acceptance record |
| Part-removal window | Mold-open position, part/runner release state, clearance for manual or automated removal and downstream destination | Cell motion/clearance review linked to the mold, part and end-of-arm tooling where used |
| Robot handoff | Required ejector and robot positions, enable/complete semantics, part-presence or removal confirmation, reject path and restart ownership | Interface register with exact specification/release, endpoint mapping and planned function test |
| Acceptance and change control | Test configuration, approved method, observations, deviations, punch-list closure, retained files and recheck triggers | Signed FAT/SAT or mold-trial record tied to the delivered machine, mold, software, options and cell |
EVIDENCE SEQUENCE
Move from controlled drawings to one as-tested handoff record.
This sequence structures procurement evidence; it is not a mold design, setup, operating or safety-validation procedure.
Freeze the machine, mold and part identities
Use the exact clamping-unit configuration, mold revision, molded part, ejector arrangement and removal method. A family name or maximum catalogue field is not an interface record.
Separate demand from available capability
Record mold-required working stroke and force basis beside the supplier-confirmed machine stroke and force. Keep units, directions, datums, assumptions and option dependencies visible.
Overlay the mechanical interface
Compare rod or plate positions, the load path, mating geometry, coupling or return detail, clearances and maintenance access on controlled machine and mold drawings.
Map release and removal states
Name the intended mold-open, ejector, part/runner and robot states through release, takeout, reject handling, return and readiness for the next cycle.
Approve a safe acceptance method
Assign each requirement to document review, supplier-approved function check, representative mold trial, FAT or SAT. The responsible machine, mold, robot and site parties must approve the method.
Retain evidence and recheck triggers
Keep the as-built drawings, configuration, observations, signal evidence, deviations and approvals. Reopen the review after a mold, ejector component, software, robot or sequence change.
PART REMOVAL / ROBOT HANDOFF
Keep machine position, part release and removal confirmation separate.
A completed ejector motion does not by itself confirm acceptable part release, successful robot takeout or downstream receipt.
Release requirement
Define the part and runner condition that must be achieved before removal. Do not treat completed ejector travel alone as proof of acceptable release.
Removal clearance
Record the mold-open position, ejector state and available path for the intended operator, chute or end-of-arm tooling.
Robot or handling confirmation
Where automation is used, define the exact position, enable, part-availability/removal and fault semantics in the controlled interface register.
Return and cycle release
Define which confirmed states allow ejector return, robot exit and the next machine movement, including ownership of abnormal or incomplete handoffs.
PRIMARY SOURCES / BOUNDARY
Pending technical review: official sources define fields and examples—not a supplier capability.
The source record separates current drafts, product-specific technical data, an automatic-mold-change coupling reference, robot data semantics and the safety boundary. No source value is transferred to NEW ORIENTAL IMM.
EUROMAP 102 Draft 1.0 — Technical Data for Injection Molding Machines
The official January 2026 draft separates ejector drive, end-position sensing, maximum ejector stroke and maximum ejector force as distinct machine-data fields.
Boundary: This is a draft data model, not a sizing rule, acceptance method or proof of any NEW ORIENTAL IMM configuration. Final fields and publication status require technical review.
EUROMAP 101.2 Draft 1.0 — Plastics and Rubber Moulds: Engineering Data
The official January 2026 draft places the ejector concept, target-machine assumptions, peripheral devices, machine-ejector stroke and mold-function check inside the mold engineering handover.
Boundary: This draft supports a structured mold-side record. It does not design the mold, calculate ejection demand or release an interface for production.
ALLROUNDER 520 A Multi-Component Technical Data
The official technical sheet is a product-specific example that lists ejector force and stroke separately and shows ejector-bolt, mold-bore and optional coupling information in mold-installation drawings.
Boundary: Its values and geometry belong to the identified ARBURG machine and stated equipment. They are not copied into a universal rule or attributed to NEW ORIENTAL IMM.
EUROMAP 11 — Automatic Mould Changing on Injection Moulding Machines
The official recommendation includes a dedicated part for coupling the ejector within automatic mold-changing scope.
Boundary: EUROMAP 11 is an automatic-mold-change reference from 1993. It is not generalized to every mold, machine or manually connected ejector; exact edition, mechanism and supplier approval still control.
EUROMAP 79 Release Candidate 1.00.06 — IMM-to-Robot Data Exchange
The official page labels this as Release Candidate 1.00.06 (updated version March 2024) and lists ejector position signals, part availability/tracking and robot inserting or removing signals for data coordination.
Boundary: This release candidate supports only the stated ejector, part and robot data-coordination semantics. It does not prove mechanical ejector fit, provide the safety interface or establish capability of the proposed machine; the official page states that safety signals use EUROMAP 81. Confirm the exact RC and implementation.
Horizontal Injection Molding Machines
OSHA identifies mold-area crushing hazards, including reaching in to loosen a stuck part, and describes guarding, interlock and lockout/tagout boundaries.
Boundary: This source provides a US safety boundary only. Applicable law, the machine/cell risk assessment, manufacturer instructions and the site's authorized procedure govern actual work.
BUYER QUESTIONS
Ejector stroke, force and interface FAQ
These answers keep catalogue maximums, mold demand, mechanical coupling and robot coordination from being mistaken for one decision.
01Is maximum ejector stroke enough to prove that a mold fits?+
No. Record the mold-required working stroke and datums, the configured machine travel, the rod or plate pattern, connection method, opening/removal clearance, sequence and acceptance evidence. A maximum value does not prove that the complete interface works.
02Can ejector force be selected from part weight?+
Do not use part weight as a universal force rule. Ask the mold designer or responsible engineer for a traceable force-demand basis for the identified mold and part condition, then compare it with the supplier-confirmed configured-machine basis and a representative acceptance plan.
03Is one center ejector rod compatible with every mold?+
No. The machine rod or plate positions, mold contact points, datums, load path, mating geometry, coupling or return method and clearances must be compared on controlled drawings. Keep any mismatch as an open engineering action.
04Does an EUROMAP robot interface define the mechanical ejector coupling?+
No. A robot interface can define position, enable or part-handoff semantics, depending on the exact document and implementation. The ejector rod, plate, bolt or coupling remains a separate mechanical interface that needs its own drawing and approval.
05Does an ejector-forward signal prove that the part was removed?+
No. Machine position, part release, robot takeout and downstream receipt are different states. Define which evidence confirms each required state and how an incomplete or abnormal handoff is handled by the approved cell design.
06Is this an ejector adjustment or test procedure?+
No. This is an RFQ and evidence checklist. Setup, inspection and testing must follow current manufacturer instructions, applicable rules, the machine/cell risk assessment and the site's authorized guarding and energy-control procedures.
07What belongs in the ejector-interface RFQ?+
Include controlled machine, platen, mold and cell drawings; required and available stroke/force bases; rod or plate pattern; coupling/return details; position evidence; release/removal sequence; robot and reject semantics; acceptance method; deviations; and recheck triggers.
EJECTOR INTERFACE / NEXT STEP
Request one ejector and part-removal interface pack.
Attach the controlled machine, platen, mold and cell drawings; required and available stroke/force bases; rod or coupling detail; release/removal states; robot interface record; safe acceptance method; deviations; and recheck triggers.
Build the machine brief