15
Research Article Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding Process Parameters for Short Product Cycle Time Saad M. S. Mukras Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim University, Buraydah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia Correspondence should be addressed to Saad M. S. Mukras; [email protected] Received 31 December 2019; Accepted 13 February 2020; Published 11 March 2020 Academic Editor: Gyorgy Szekely Copyright © 2020 Saad M. S. Mukras. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. is paper presents a framework for optimizing injection molding process parameters for minimum product cycle time subjected to constraints on the product defects. Two product defects, namely, volumetric shrinkage and warpage, as well as seven process parameters including injection speed, injection pressure, cooling time, packing pressure, mold temperature, packing time, and melt temperature, were considered. Injection molding experiments were conducted on specifically chosen test points and results were used to compute the volumetric shrinkage and warpage (at each test point). ereafter, three relationships between the product cycle time (one relationship), the two product defects (two relationships), and the injection molding parameters were constructed using the kriging technique. An optimization problem to minimize the product cycle time (described by the first relationship) subject to constraints on the product defects (described by the latter two relationships) was then formulated. A combination set of points between the lower and upper extreme values of acceptable product defect was generated to serve as constraints for the two product defects. e optimization problem was then solved using the Fmincon function, available in the Matlab optimization toolbox. A plot of the optimization results revealed an appreciable tradeoff between the cycle time and the two product defects. To validate the optimization, an additional injection molding experiment was conducted for one of the optimization results. Results from the additional experiment showed reasonably close agreement with simulation optimization results differing in the cycle time, the warpage and volumetric shrinkage by 6.7%, 3.2%, and 8%, respectively. 1. Introduction Injection molding is undoubtedly among the most impor- tant industrial plastic processing techniques. It has been estimated that the process consumes approximately 32% [1] of all plastics. e process is widely used in the mass pro- duction of both commercial and consumer products. Its immense popularity is due to a number of factors including its reliability and its ability to produce complex shape in a single step with superb tolerance among others. e injection molding process is achieved using an in- jection molding unit. A schematic of a typical injection molding unit is shown in Figure 1. e process is an un- varying, repetitive process that involves feeding plastic (pellets) to the barrel via a hopper, melting of plastic using heaters in a barrel, mixing the plastic using a rotating and reciprocating screw, injecting the molten plastic into a mold cavity, packing the molten plastic within the mold cavity, cooling of the molten plastic (in the mold cavity), and thereafter ejection of the solidified plastic part. e process is, thus, generally di- vided into 3 or 4 phase [2–5] which include filling, packing, cooling, and ejection. ese phases determine the cycle time of the process, which is an important factor during production as it is directly linked to the cost of production. It can, therefore, be argued that reducing the cycle time (even seconds) within any of these phases will lead to time and cost-savings in the long run especially in the case of mass production. A combination of various steps is usually taken to reduce the cycle time. is includes fine-tuning the injection molding unit to deliver proper injection pressures and speeds (which affects the filling time), designing the product to have minimum wall thickness (which affects the filling Hindawi Advances in Polymer Technology Volume 2020, Article ID 1309209, 15 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1309209

Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

Research ArticleExperimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding ProcessParameters for Short Product Cycle Time

Saad M S Mukras

Department of Mechanical Engineering College of Engineering Qassim University Buraydah Qassim Saudi Arabia

Correspondence should be addressed to Saad M S Mukras mukrasqecedusa

Received 31 December 2019 Accepted 13 February 2020 Published 11 March 2020

Academic Editor Gyorgy Szekely

Copyright copy 2020 SaadM S Mukrasis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

is paper presents a framework for optimizing injection molding process parameters for minimum product cycle timesubjected to constraints on the product defects Two product defects namely volumetric shrinkage and warpage as well asseven process parameters including injection speed injection pressure cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time and melt temperature were considered Injection molding experiments were conducted on specifically chosentest points and results were used to compute the volumetric shrinkage and warpage (at each test point) ereafter threerelationships between the product cycle time (one relationship) the two product defects (two relationships) and the injectionmolding parameters were constructed using the kriging technique An optimization problem to minimize the product cycletime (described by the first relationship) subject to constraints on the product defects (described by the latter two relationships)was then formulated A combination set of points between the lower and upper extreme values of acceptable product defect wasgenerated to serve as constraints for the two product defects e optimization problem was then solved using the Fminconfunction available in the Matlab optimization toolbox A plot of the optimization results revealed an appreciable tradeoffbetween the cycle time and the two product defects To validate the optimization an additional injection molding experimentwas conducted for one of the optimization results Results from the additional experiment showed reasonably close agreementwith simulation optimization results differing in the cycle time the warpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and8 respectively

1 Introduction

Injection molding is undoubtedly among the most impor-tant industrial plastic processing techniques It has beenestimated that the process consumes approximately 32 [1]of all plastics e process is widely used in the mass pro-duction of both commercial and consumer products Itsimmense popularity is due to a number of factors includingits reliability and its ability to produce complex shape in asingle step with superb tolerance among others

e injection molding process is achieved using an in-jection molding unit A schematic of a typical injectionmolding unit is shown in Figure 1 e process is an un-varying repetitive process that involves feeding plastic (pellets)to the barrel via a hopper melting of plastic using heaters in abarrel mixing the plastic using a rotating and reciprocating

screw injecting the molten plastic into a mold cavity packingthe molten plastic within the mold cavity cooling of themolten plastic (in the mold cavity) and thereafter ejection ofthe solidified plastic part e process is thus generally di-vided into 3 or 4 phase [2ndash5] which include filling packingcooling and ejectionese phases determine the cycle time ofthe process which is an important factor during production asit is directly linked to the cost of production It can thereforebe argued that reducing the cycle time (even seconds) withinany of these phases will lead to time and cost-savings in thelong run especially in the case of mass production

A combination of various steps is usually taken to reducethe cycle time is includes fine-tuning the injectionmolding unit to deliver proper injection pressures andspeeds (which affects the filling time) designing the productto have minimum wall thickness (which affects the filling

HindawiAdvances in Polymer TechnologyVolume 2020 Article ID 1309209 15 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520201309209

time) making adjustments on the injection unit such asmold opening and closing (which affects the ejection time)as well as other adjustments on the process parametersExperienced plastic engineers who have gained insights onthe process generally make these adjustments [6]

Of the fourmentioned phases the cooling phase takes upmore than two-thirds of the cycle time [4 7] It is also themost important phase in addition to productivity since thecooling has a significant effect on product quality Inade-quate cooling times will usually lead to defects on theproduct such as warpage and volumetric shrinkage On theother hand longer cooling times will generally lead tosatisfactory product quality but result in low productivity(and consequently high production costs) is scenario haselicited research activities on ways to reduce the cooling timewhile ensuring acceptable product quality Majority of theseresearch activities have focused on conformal coolingchannels within the molds to enhance and accelerate cooling[7ndash18] In conformal cooling the cooling channels aredesigned to conform to the shape of the mold cavity It hasbeen demonstrated that this technique enables the moldtemperature to reach the operating temperature faster thanin molds with standard cooling channels [8 19]

ere has also been some research into optimizing theprocess parameters for reduced cycle time Zhao et al [20]proposed a process parameter optimization procedure inwhich a surrogate model is used to approximate the expensivesimulation that predicts the injection molding filling eoptimization was multiobjective and sought to lower thecavity pressure minimize the temperature difference (en-suring uniformity in the melt temperature) and to minimizethe cycle time by reducing the cooling time In [21] Chenget al proposed a procedure to optimize injection molding

process parameters through the formulation of a multipleobjective optimization probleme problem is formulated tominimize the product defect and the production cost (re-duction of the cycle time) and to maximize the molding ef-ficiency e proposed procedure brought together the use ofvariable complexity methods genetic algorithms and neuralnetworks as well as injection molding simulations usingMoldflow In [3 22] a procedure to optimize the injectionmolding process parameters for minimum warpage and cycletime is proposede authors confirm through numerical andexperimental results the validity of the proposed procedure In[23] Alvarado et al proposed a multi- and many-objectiveoptimization problem with 7 objectives including warpagevolumetric shrinkage sink marks Von Mises stress shearstress cycle time and clamping force Four process param-eters which included melt temperature packing time packingpressure and cooling time were optimized

In the literature it is observed that the proceduresproposed for process parameter optimization for reducedinjection cycle time are primarily based on injectionmoldingsimulation tools instead of experiments In these studiesresults from injection molding simulations are used toconstruct relationships between the process parameters andquantities such as product defects and injection moldingcycle time It can however be argued that while simulationscan produce useful results that can be the basis to advance toproduction they generally have limitations as they may beunable to replicate all the physics involved in the processAdditionally there may exist some conditions specific to theinjection-molding machine that cannot be adequately cap-tured in the simulations and therefore experiments may berequired to expose these conditions and or to validate thesimulations

Barrel

Mold Hopper

Feeding areaNozzle

Screw

Stationaryplaten

Movableplaten

Rearplaten

Tie barClampingunit

HeatersEjector

Mold InjectionClamping

Figure 1 Detailed schematics of a typical injection molding unit

2 Advances in Polymer Technology

In this study a procedure to optimize the process pa-rameters for reduced cycle time is presented e procedureinvolves constructing relationships between the processparameters and the product quality and another relationshipbetween the process parameter and the cycle time eserelationships are similar to those developed in previousresearch except that they are developed using experiment-based design of experiments (DOE)is technique involvedperforming actual experiments (rather than numerical ex-periments) at specific points in the design space as deter-mined using the selected DOE and thereafter using the datato construct the relationshipse use of experimental-baseddesign of experiments technique is a generally acceptedprocedure and has been used in various disciplines such as inmembranes [24] processing of food and bioproducts [25]photovoltaics [26] biotechnology [27] and analyticalchemistry [28 29] In this work using this technique willmitigate computation costs while ensuring that all condi-tions specific to the injection-molding unit are captured inthe analysis and thus leading to more accurate results of theoptimized parameters

2 Injection Molding Experiments

e injection molding process begins with feeding plasticpellets into the injection-molding unit (see Figure 1) eplastic pellets are then directed to the barrel of the injectionunits where they are mixed and heated causing them tomelt e molten plastic is then subjected to pressure andinjected into a mold cavity where it is packed (underpressure) and cooled allowing it to solidify e solidifiedplastic is then ejected from the unit as a finished producte entire injection molding process requires the specifi-cation of certain processing parameters that will affect theproduct quality as well as the injectionmolding process cycletime

In this study experiments were conducted in an effort toarrive at the best combination of process parameters thatwould lead to the minimum cycle time while considering theextent of product defect (product quality) Two productdefects were considered namely the warpage and volu-metric shrinkage Furthermore seven process parametersthat have been shown to affect the product quality areconsidered ese include the injection speed injectionpressure cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time andmelt temperaturee injection speed andinjection pressure have been identified in [30 31] whereasthe cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time and melt temperature have been identified in[3 31ndash36] as having an effect on the product quality

e experiments in this work were conducted on aninjection molding unit known as the Arburg Allrounder420C [37] and a simple mold with product dimensionsdepicted in Figure 2 was used High-density polyethylene(M80064) produced by SABIC was used in the experimentsSome basic properties of the plastic extracted from [38] arelisted in Table 1

In order to arrive at the best combination of the processparameter for minimum cycle time a relationship between

the process parameter and the cycle time is to be constructedand optimized e optimization is subjected to constraintson the extent of acceptable product defect which are rep-resented by two other relationships between the productdefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and the processparameters

21 Test Points for Injection Molding Experiments e threerelationships mentioned previously are constructed fromdata obtained through actual injection molding experimentsperformed at combination sets of the process parametersese combination sets are selected through DOE in amanner that ensures that the design space is adequatelycovered In this study the central composite design (CCD)was adopted e CCD is a factorial or fractional factorialdesign with center points which are augmented with starpoints that enhance the estimation of curvature Dependingon the location of the star point the CCD can either becircumscribed inscribed or face-centered In the CCD thesample size is determined according to the followingequation

2f + 2fminus q+ 1 (1)

where f is the number of factors being considered (ie theprocess parameters in the current study) and q refers to thefraction of the full factorial to be used For a case where thereare numerous factors (eg fgt 5) a full factorial design(q 0) results in an enormous sample size In such a case it isadvisable to use the fractional factorial design which utilizesonly a fraction of the full factorial design without losing itsmain benefits A detailed treatment of the DOE can be foundin [39]

e complete design space for the seven processparameters is based on the upper and lower bounds of the

93mm

3mm

117mm

Figure 2 Geometry and dimensions of the injection-moldedproduct used in the experiments

Table 1 Properties for HDPE M80064 series (produced bySABIC)

Property Unit ValueStress at yield MPa 33Melt flow rate (at 190degC and 216 kg) g10min 8Density kgm3 964

Advances in Polymer Technology 3

parameters e corresponding bounds of these param-eters are listed in Table 2 e upper and lower bounds ofthe injection speed cooling time packing pressure andpacking times were suggested by experienced plastic tech-nicians whereas the bounds for the injection pressure moldtemperature and melt temperature are based on the rec-ommended ranges from the material producers [38] For thecurrent study a half-fraction (q 1) face-centered centralcomposite design was used Accordingly for the seven pa-rameters 79 data points were generated

22 Injection Molding Product Defect Quantification Tworelations relating the two defects (warpage and volumetricshrinkage) to the seven parameters need to be established Inorder to achieve this it is first necessary to quantify thedefects e defect quantification adopted in this work isdescribed as follows

221 Warpage Quantification e warpage experienced ininjection molding products can be defined as a deviation ofthe product geometry from the anticipated geometry In thisstudy the warpage is defined as the sum of the maximumout-of-plane displacement of the product edges which canbe expressed as

Wsum 1113944 ymaxi i 1 2 3 4 (2)

In equation (2) ymaxirefers to themaximum out-of-plane

displacement along the four edges of the product isdefinition has previously been used in [40]

222 Volumetric Shrinkage Quantification e volumetricshrinkage can be estimated by determining the differencebetween the anticipated product volume (Vanticipated) and theactual product volumes e anticipated product volume iscomputed from the expected product dimensions (based onthe diagram in Figure 2) whereas the actual product volumeis computed from the known product density and measuredmass e volumetric shrinkage Vshrinkage can thus beexpressed as

Vshrinkage Vanticipated minusm

ρ (3)

is expression has also been previously used in [40]

23 Injection Molding Experiments Injection molding ex-periments were performed on the 79 data points (previouslygenerated) Pictures of samples of products from the ex-periments are shown in Figure 3 Figure 3(a) shows aproduct with severe volumetric shrinkage and Figure 3(b)shows a product with severe warpage A product withminimal defects is shown in Figure 3(c)

Product defect including warpage and volumetricshrinkage was computed for the 79 products (usingequations (2) and (3) respectively) and are reported in

Table 3 Also listed in Table 3 are the corresponding cycletimes for each of the 79 products

3 Injection Molding Parameter Optimization

e injection molding process parameters for reduced cycletime subjected to constraints on the product defect are to bedetermined through optimization To achieve this it is nec-essary to develop the relationship between the process pa-rameters and the cycle time It is also necessary to develop twoother relationships between the two product defects and theprocess parameters e former relationship can then be op-timized subject to constraints on the defects (as described by thelatter two relationships) A description of the development ofthe three relationships followed by the formulation of theoptimization problem is presented in the following sections

31 Kriging Model A variety of models have previouslybeen used to represent the relationship between the pro-cess parameters and the product defect Some of thesetechniques include the artificial neural network [41ndash47]support vector regression [48] kriging [40 49] and re-sponse surface method [50ndash52] In this work we adopt thekriging model to develop the relationship between theprocess parameters and the product defect and the rela-tionship between the process parameters and the productcycle time

Kriging is a regression interpolation technique devel-oped by geologists in an attempt to predict the properties ofminerals in a specified region based on knowledge ofproperties in other neighboring regions [53] For this studythe Kriging model as well as the Matlab Kriging toolboxdescribed in [54] were used

e data obtained from the injectionmolding experimentsshown in Table 3 were used to generate the three relationshipsusing the kriging Matlab toolbox e three relationships havebeen plotted for the various process parameters as shown inFigures 4ndash6 respectively

ese plots provide some insight into the relation-ships between the cycle time and the process parametersas well as the relationship between the two defects andthe process parameters For instance in Figure 4(a) itcan be seen that the cycle time increases with decreasingmelt temperature It is observed in Figures 4(b) and 4(d)that the cycle time increases with increasing cooling timeand increasing packing time respectively which is an

Table 2 Lower and upper bounds for the test variables (bound forboth the DOE and optimization)

Test variables Units Lower bound Upper boundInjection speed mmsec 15 60Injection pressure bar 450 800Cooling time sec 10 30Packing pressure bar 100 400Mold temperature degC 15 45Packing time sec 3 9Melt temperature degC 200 250

4 Advances in Polymer Technology

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3 Products resulting from the injectionmolding experiments (a) Product with severe volumetric shrinkage (warpage of 81mm andvolumetric shrinkage of 649mm3) (b) product with severe warpage (warpage of 136mm and volumetric shrinkage of 625mm3) and(c) acceptable product (warpage of 29mm and volumetric shrinkage of 245mm3)

Table 3 Experimental results for warpage volumetric shrinkage and cycle time

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

1 15 450 457 10 100 15 9 200 58 397 3112 15 450 457 30 100 15 3 200 68 517 4393 15 450 457 10 400 15 3 200 6 459 2474 15 450 457 30 400 15 9 200 29 245 4985 15 800 462 10 100 15 3 200 45 526 2456 15 800 461 30 100 15 9 200 34 395 4987 15 800 460 10 400 15 9 200 39 255 3148 15 800 461 30 400 15 3 200 6 449 4389 60 450 452 10 100 15 3 200 44 538 23610 60 450 452 30 100 15 9 200 37 4 48911 60 450 452 10 400 15 9 200 35 263 30312 60 450 452 30 400 15 3 200 77 462 42713 60 800 785 10 100 15 9 200 58 434 29014 60 800 783 30 100 15 3 200 91 521 41915 60 800 791 10 400 15 3 200 7 41 22916 60 800 787 30 400 15 9 200 29 197 47917 15 450 447 10 100 45 3 200 47 533 25618 15 450 445 30 100 45 9 200 9 405 49919 15 450 450 10 400 45 9 200 51 324 31220 15 450 447 30 400 45 3 200 68 509 43821 15 800 445 10 100 45 9 200 4 41 30922 15 800 446 30 100 45 3 200 79 555 48823 15 800 444 10 400 45 3 200 96 517 24824 15 800 446 30 400 45 9 200 4 315 49825 60 450 453 10 100 45 9 200 45 419 29826 60 450 452 30 100 45 3 200 72 568 427

Advances in Polymer Technology 5

expected behavior In Figure 4(c) it is also observed thatthe cycle time increases with decreasing injectionpressure

e plots in Figure 5 reveal the behavior of thewarpage as a function of the process parameters InFigure 5(a) it is observed that the warpage increases with

Table 3 Continued

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

27 60 450 453 10 400 45 3 200 86 531 23328 60 450 453 30 400 45 9 200 45 325 48729 60 800 783 10 100 45 3 200 11 553 22430 60 800 779 30 100 45 9 200 38 414 47931 60 800 781 10 400 45 9 200 6 228 29432 60 800 780 30 400 45 3 200 79 427 41933 15 450 343 10 100 15 3 250 84 592 24434 15 450 342 30 100 15 9 250 52 385 49735 15 450 343 10 400 15 9 250 45 312 31436 15 450 344 30 400 15 3 250 8 535 43737 15 800 345 10 100 15 9 250 5 395 31238 15 800 345 30 100 15 3 250 76 585 43739 15 800 348 10 400 15 3 250 67 548 24640 15 800 349 30 400 15 9 250 64 302 49741 60 450 451 10 100 15 9 250 48 415 29542 60 450 451 30 100 15 3 250 6 606 42143 60 450 452 10 400 15 3 250 77 583 22944 60 450 452 30 400 15 9 250 52 32 48145 60 800 639 10 100 15 3 250 16 616 22646 60 800 639 30 100 15 9 250 71 407 47847 60 800 639 10 400 15 9 250 6 329 29548 60 800 642 30 400 15 3 250 91 548 41949 15 450 333 10 100 45 9 250 58 454 30850 15 450 334 30 100 45 3 250 79 621 43851 15 450 335 10 400 45 3 250 99 595 24352 15 450 338 30 400 45 9 250 84 384 49853 15 800 336 10 100 45 3 250 136 625 24354 15 800 338 30 100 45 9 250 88 443 49755 15 800 338 10 400 45 9 250 7 394 31056 15 800 337 30 400 45 3 250 86 587 43957 60 450 451 10 100 45 3 250 81 649 22658 60 450 452 30 100 45 9 250 76 463 48259 60 450 452 10 400 45 9 250 93 413 29460 60 450 452 30 400 45 3 250 83 611 42261 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 200 62 42 35462 375 625 511 20 250 30 6 250 8 484 35363 375 625 625 20 250 15 6 225 9 426 35364 375 625 625 20 250 45 6 225 36 487 35465 15 625 395 20 250 30 6 225 73 431 35966 60 625 628 20 250 30 6 225 76 451 35067 375 450 452 20 250 30 6 225 65 444 35668 375 800 580 20 250 30 6 225 76 445 35369 375 625 625 20 100 30 6 225 48 497 35470 375 625 625 20 400 30 6 225 75 427 35471 375 625 625 10 250 30 6 225 63 461 26172 375 625 625 30 250 30 6 225 57 45 45473 375 625 625 20 250 30 3 225 74 561 32474 375 625 625 20 250 30 9 225 56 363 38375 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 225 72 454 35376 60 800 800 10 100 45 9 250 765 431 28277 60 800 800 30 100 45 3 250 801 566 42278 60 800 800 10 400 45 3 250 112 453 21979 60 800 800 30 400 45 9 250 488 251 474

6 Advances in Polymer Technology

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 2: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

time) making adjustments on the injection unit such asmold opening and closing (which affects the ejection time)as well as other adjustments on the process parametersExperienced plastic engineers who have gained insights onthe process generally make these adjustments [6]

Of the fourmentioned phases the cooling phase takes upmore than two-thirds of the cycle time [4 7] It is also themost important phase in addition to productivity since thecooling has a significant effect on product quality Inade-quate cooling times will usually lead to defects on theproduct such as warpage and volumetric shrinkage On theother hand longer cooling times will generally lead tosatisfactory product quality but result in low productivity(and consequently high production costs) is scenario haselicited research activities on ways to reduce the cooling timewhile ensuring acceptable product quality Majority of theseresearch activities have focused on conformal coolingchannels within the molds to enhance and accelerate cooling[7ndash18] In conformal cooling the cooling channels aredesigned to conform to the shape of the mold cavity It hasbeen demonstrated that this technique enables the moldtemperature to reach the operating temperature faster thanin molds with standard cooling channels [8 19]

ere has also been some research into optimizing theprocess parameters for reduced cycle time Zhao et al [20]proposed a process parameter optimization procedure inwhich a surrogate model is used to approximate the expensivesimulation that predicts the injection molding filling eoptimization was multiobjective and sought to lower thecavity pressure minimize the temperature difference (en-suring uniformity in the melt temperature) and to minimizethe cycle time by reducing the cooling time In [21] Chenget al proposed a procedure to optimize injection molding

process parameters through the formulation of a multipleobjective optimization probleme problem is formulated tominimize the product defect and the production cost (re-duction of the cycle time) and to maximize the molding ef-ficiency e proposed procedure brought together the use ofvariable complexity methods genetic algorithms and neuralnetworks as well as injection molding simulations usingMoldflow In [3 22] a procedure to optimize the injectionmolding process parameters for minimum warpage and cycletime is proposede authors confirm through numerical andexperimental results the validity of the proposed procedure In[23] Alvarado et al proposed a multi- and many-objectiveoptimization problem with 7 objectives including warpagevolumetric shrinkage sink marks Von Mises stress shearstress cycle time and clamping force Four process param-eters which included melt temperature packing time packingpressure and cooling time were optimized

In the literature it is observed that the proceduresproposed for process parameter optimization for reducedinjection cycle time are primarily based on injectionmoldingsimulation tools instead of experiments In these studiesresults from injection molding simulations are used toconstruct relationships between the process parameters andquantities such as product defects and injection moldingcycle time It can however be argued that while simulationscan produce useful results that can be the basis to advance toproduction they generally have limitations as they may beunable to replicate all the physics involved in the processAdditionally there may exist some conditions specific to theinjection-molding machine that cannot be adequately cap-tured in the simulations and therefore experiments may berequired to expose these conditions and or to validate thesimulations

Barrel

Mold Hopper

Feeding areaNozzle

Screw

Stationaryplaten

Movableplaten

Rearplaten

Tie barClampingunit

HeatersEjector

Mold InjectionClamping

Figure 1 Detailed schematics of a typical injection molding unit

2 Advances in Polymer Technology

In this study a procedure to optimize the process pa-rameters for reduced cycle time is presented e procedureinvolves constructing relationships between the processparameters and the product quality and another relationshipbetween the process parameter and the cycle time eserelationships are similar to those developed in previousresearch except that they are developed using experiment-based design of experiments (DOE)is technique involvedperforming actual experiments (rather than numerical ex-periments) at specific points in the design space as deter-mined using the selected DOE and thereafter using the datato construct the relationshipse use of experimental-baseddesign of experiments technique is a generally acceptedprocedure and has been used in various disciplines such as inmembranes [24] processing of food and bioproducts [25]photovoltaics [26] biotechnology [27] and analyticalchemistry [28 29] In this work using this technique willmitigate computation costs while ensuring that all condi-tions specific to the injection-molding unit are captured inthe analysis and thus leading to more accurate results of theoptimized parameters

2 Injection Molding Experiments

e injection molding process begins with feeding plasticpellets into the injection-molding unit (see Figure 1) eplastic pellets are then directed to the barrel of the injectionunits where they are mixed and heated causing them tomelt e molten plastic is then subjected to pressure andinjected into a mold cavity where it is packed (underpressure) and cooled allowing it to solidify e solidifiedplastic is then ejected from the unit as a finished producte entire injection molding process requires the specifi-cation of certain processing parameters that will affect theproduct quality as well as the injectionmolding process cycletime

In this study experiments were conducted in an effort toarrive at the best combination of process parameters thatwould lead to the minimum cycle time while considering theextent of product defect (product quality) Two productdefects were considered namely the warpage and volu-metric shrinkage Furthermore seven process parametersthat have been shown to affect the product quality areconsidered ese include the injection speed injectionpressure cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time andmelt temperaturee injection speed andinjection pressure have been identified in [30 31] whereasthe cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time and melt temperature have been identified in[3 31ndash36] as having an effect on the product quality

e experiments in this work were conducted on aninjection molding unit known as the Arburg Allrounder420C [37] and a simple mold with product dimensionsdepicted in Figure 2 was used High-density polyethylene(M80064) produced by SABIC was used in the experimentsSome basic properties of the plastic extracted from [38] arelisted in Table 1

In order to arrive at the best combination of the processparameter for minimum cycle time a relationship between

the process parameter and the cycle time is to be constructedand optimized e optimization is subjected to constraintson the extent of acceptable product defect which are rep-resented by two other relationships between the productdefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and the processparameters

21 Test Points for Injection Molding Experiments e threerelationships mentioned previously are constructed fromdata obtained through actual injection molding experimentsperformed at combination sets of the process parametersese combination sets are selected through DOE in amanner that ensures that the design space is adequatelycovered In this study the central composite design (CCD)was adopted e CCD is a factorial or fractional factorialdesign with center points which are augmented with starpoints that enhance the estimation of curvature Dependingon the location of the star point the CCD can either becircumscribed inscribed or face-centered In the CCD thesample size is determined according to the followingequation

2f + 2fminus q+ 1 (1)

where f is the number of factors being considered (ie theprocess parameters in the current study) and q refers to thefraction of the full factorial to be used For a case where thereare numerous factors (eg fgt 5) a full factorial design(q 0) results in an enormous sample size In such a case it isadvisable to use the fractional factorial design which utilizesonly a fraction of the full factorial design without losing itsmain benefits A detailed treatment of the DOE can be foundin [39]

e complete design space for the seven processparameters is based on the upper and lower bounds of the

93mm

3mm

117mm

Figure 2 Geometry and dimensions of the injection-moldedproduct used in the experiments

Table 1 Properties for HDPE M80064 series (produced bySABIC)

Property Unit ValueStress at yield MPa 33Melt flow rate (at 190degC and 216 kg) g10min 8Density kgm3 964

Advances in Polymer Technology 3

parameters e corresponding bounds of these param-eters are listed in Table 2 e upper and lower bounds ofthe injection speed cooling time packing pressure andpacking times were suggested by experienced plastic tech-nicians whereas the bounds for the injection pressure moldtemperature and melt temperature are based on the rec-ommended ranges from the material producers [38] For thecurrent study a half-fraction (q 1) face-centered centralcomposite design was used Accordingly for the seven pa-rameters 79 data points were generated

22 Injection Molding Product Defect Quantification Tworelations relating the two defects (warpage and volumetricshrinkage) to the seven parameters need to be established Inorder to achieve this it is first necessary to quantify thedefects e defect quantification adopted in this work isdescribed as follows

221 Warpage Quantification e warpage experienced ininjection molding products can be defined as a deviation ofthe product geometry from the anticipated geometry In thisstudy the warpage is defined as the sum of the maximumout-of-plane displacement of the product edges which canbe expressed as

Wsum 1113944 ymaxi i 1 2 3 4 (2)

In equation (2) ymaxirefers to themaximum out-of-plane

displacement along the four edges of the product isdefinition has previously been used in [40]

222 Volumetric Shrinkage Quantification e volumetricshrinkage can be estimated by determining the differencebetween the anticipated product volume (Vanticipated) and theactual product volumes e anticipated product volume iscomputed from the expected product dimensions (based onthe diagram in Figure 2) whereas the actual product volumeis computed from the known product density and measuredmass e volumetric shrinkage Vshrinkage can thus beexpressed as

Vshrinkage Vanticipated minusm

ρ (3)

is expression has also been previously used in [40]

23 Injection Molding Experiments Injection molding ex-periments were performed on the 79 data points (previouslygenerated) Pictures of samples of products from the ex-periments are shown in Figure 3 Figure 3(a) shows aproduct with severe volumetric shrinkage and Figure 3(b)shows a product with severe warpage A product withminimal defects is shown in Figure 3(c)

Product defect including warpage and volumetricshrinkage was computed for the 79 products (usingequations (2) and (3) respectively) and are reported in

Table 3 Also listed in Table 3 are the corresponding cycletimes for each of the 79 products

3 Injection Molding Parameter Optimization

e injection molding process parameters for reduced cycletime subjected to constraints on the product defect are to bedetermined through optimization To achieve this it is nec-essary to develop the relationship between the process pa-rameters and the cycle time It is also necessary to develop twoother relationships between the two product defects and theprocess parameters e former relationship can then be op-timized subject to constraints on the defects (as described by thelatter two relationships) A description of the development ofthe three relationships followed by the formulation of theoptimization problem is presented in the following sections

31 Kriging Model A variety of models have previouslybeen used to represent the relationship between the pro-cess parameters and the product defect Some of thesetechniques include the artificial neural network [41ndash47]support vector regression [48] kriging [40 49] and re-sponse surface method [50ndash52] In this work we adopt thekriging model to develop the relationship between theprocess parameters and the product defect and the rela-tionship between the process parameters and the productcycle time

Kriging is a regression interpolation technique devel-oped by geologists in an attempt to predict the properties ofminerals in a specified region based on knowledge ofproperties in other neighboring regions [53] For this studythe Kriging model as well as the Matlab Kriging toolboxdescribed in [54] were used

e data obtained from the injectionmolding experimentsshown in Table 3 were used to generate the three relationshipsusing the kriging Matlab toolbox e three relationships havebeen plotted for the various process parameters as shown inFigures 4ndash6 respectively

ese plots provide some insight into the relation-ships between the cycle time and the process parametersas well as the relationship between the two defects andthe process parameters For instance in Figure 4(a) itcan be seen that the cycle time increases with decreasingmelt temperature It is observed in Figures 4(b) and 4(d)that the cycle time increases with increasing cooling timeand increasing packing time respectively which is an

Table 2 Lower and upper bounds for the test variables (bound forboth the DOE and optimization)

Test variables Units Lower bound Upper boundInjection speed mmsec 15 60Injection pressure bar 450 800Cooling time sec 10 30Packing pressure bar 100 400Mold temperature degC 15 45Packing time sec 3 9Melt temperature degC 200 250

4 Advances in Polymer Technology

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3 Products resulting from the injectionmolding experiments (a) Product with severe volumetric shrinkage (warpage of 81mm andvolumetric shrinkage of 649mm3) (b) product with severe warpage (warpage of 136mm and volumetric shrinkage of 625mm3) and(c) acceptable product (warpage of 29mm and volumetric shrinkage of 245mm3)

Table 3 Experimental results for warpage volumetric shrinkage and cycle time

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

1 15 450 457 10 100 15 9 200 58 397 3112 15 450 457 30 100 15 3 200 68 517 4393 15 450 457 10 400 15 3 200 6 459 2474 15 450 457 30 400 15 9 200 29 245 4985 15 800 462 10 100 15 3 200 45 526 2456 15 800 461 30 100 15 9 200 34 395 4987 15 800 460 10 400 15 9 200 39 255 3148 15 800 461 30 400 15 3 200 6 449 4389 60 450 452 10 100 15 3 200 44 538 23610 60 450 452 30 100 15 9 200 37 4 48911 60 450 452 10 400 15 9 200 35 263 30312 60 450 452 30 400 15 3 200 77 462 42713 60 800 785 10 100 15 9 200 58 434 29014 60 800 783 30 100 15 3 200 91 521 41915 60 800 791 10 400 15 3 200 7 41 22916 60 800 787 30 400 15 9 200 29 197 47917 15 450 447 10 100 45 3 200 47 533 25618 15 450 445 30 100 45 9 200 9 405 49919 15 450 450 10 400 45 9 200 51 324 31220 15 450 447 30 400 45 3 200 68 509 43821 15 800 445 10 100 45 9 200 4 41 30922 15 800 446 30 100 45 3 200 79 555 48823 15 800 444 10 400 45 3 200 96 517 24824 15 800 446 30 400 45 9 200 4 315 49825 60 450 453 10 100 45 9 200 45 419 29826 60 450 452 30 100 45 3 200 72 568 427

Advances in Polymer Technology 5

expected behavior In Figure 4(c) it is also observed thatthe cycle time increases with decreasing injectionpressure

e plots in Figure 5 reveal the behavior of thewarpage as a function of the process parameters InFigure 5(a) it is observed that the warpage increases with

Table 3 Continued

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

27 60 450 453 10 400 45 3 200 86 531 23328 60 450 453 30 400 45 9 200 45 325 48729 60 800 783 10 100 45 3 200 11 553 22430 60 800 779 30 100 45 9 200 38 414 47931 60 800 781 10 400 45 9 200 6 228 29432 60 800 780 30 400 45 3 200 79 427 41933 15 450 343 10 100 15 3 250 84 592 24434 15 450 342 30 100 15 9 250 52 385 49735 15 450 343 10 400 15 9 250 45 312 31436 15 450 344 30 400 15 3 250 8 535 43737 15 800 345 10 100 15 9 250 5 395 31238 15 800 345 30 100 15 3 250 76 585 43739 15 800 348 10 400 15 3 250 67 548 24640 15 800 349 30 400 15 9 250 64 302 49741 60 450 451 10 100 15 9 250 48 415 29542 60 450 451 30 100 15 3 250 6 606 42143 60 450 452 10 400 15 3 250 77 583 22944 60 450 452 30 400 15 9 250 52 32 48145 60 800 639 10 100 15 3 250 16 616 22646 60 800 639 30 100 15 9 250 71 407 47847 60 800 639 10 400 15 9 250 6 329 29548 60 800 642 30 400 15 3 250 91 548 41949 15 450 333 10 100 45 9 250 58 454 30850 15 450 334 30 100 45 3 250 79 621 43851 15 450 335 10 400 45 3 250 99 595 24352 15 450 338 30 400 45 9 250 84 384 49853 15 800 336 10 100 45 3 250 136 625 24354 15 800 338 30 100 45 9 250 88 443 49755 15 800 338 10 400 45 9 250 7 394 31056 15 800 337 30 400 45 3 250 86 587 43957 60 450 451 10 100 45 3 250 81 649 22658 60 450 452 30 100 45 9 250 76 463 48259 60 450 452 10 400 45 9 250 93 413 29460 60 450 452 30 400 45 3 250 83 611 42261 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 200 62 42 35462 375 625 511 20 250 30 6 250 8 484 35363 375 625 625 20 250 15 6 225 9 426 35364 375 625 625 20 250 45 6 225 36 487 35465 15 625 395 20 250 30 6 225 73 431 35966 60 625 628 20 250 30 6 225 76 451 35067 375 450 452 20 250 30 6 225 65 444 35668 375 800 580 20 250 30 6 225 76 445 35369 375 625 625 20 100 30 6 225 48 497 35470 375 625 625 20 400 30 6 225 75 427 35471 375 625 625 10 250 30 6 225 63 461 26172 375 625 625 30 250 30 6 225 57 45 45473 375 625 625 20 250 30 3 225 74 561 32474 375 625 625 20 250 30 9 225 56 363 38375 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 225 72 454 35376 60 800 800 10 100 45 9 250 765 431 28277 60 800 800 30 100 45 3 250 801 566 42278 60 800 800 10 400 45 3 250 112 453 21979 60 800 800 30 400 45 9 250 488 251 474

6 Advances in Polymer Technology

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 3: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

In this study a procedure to optimize the process pa-rameters for reduced cycle time is presented e procedureinvolves constructing relationships between the processparameters and the product quality and another relationshipbetween the process parameter and the cycle time eserelationships are similar to those developed in previousresearch except that they are developed using experiment-based design of experiments (DOE)is technique involvedperforming actual experiments (rather than numerical ex-periments) at specific points in the design space as deter-mined using the selected DOE and thereafter using the datato construct the relationshipse use of experimental-baseddesign of experiments technique is a generally acceptedprocedure and has been used in various disciplines such as inmembranes [24] processing of food and bioproducts [25]photovoltaics [26] biotechnology [27] and analyticalchemistry [28 29] In this work using this technique willmitigate computation costs while ensuring that all condi-tions specific to the injection-molding unit are captured inthe analysis and thus leading to more accurate results of theoptimized parameters

2 Injection Molding Experiments

e injection molding process begins with feeding plasticpellets into the injection-molding unit (see Figure 1) eplastic pellets are then directed to the barrel of the injectionunits where they are mixed and heated causing them tomelt e molten plastic is then subjected to pressure andinjected into a mold cavity where it is packed (underpressure) and cooled allowing it to solidify e solidifiedplastic is then ejected from the unit as a finished producte entire injection molding process requires the specifi-cation of certain processing parameters that will affect theproduct quality as well as the injectionmolding process cycletime

In this study experiments were conducted in an effort toarrive at the best combination of process parameters thatwould lead to the minimum cycle time while considering theextent of product defect (product quality) Two productdefects were considered namely the warpage and volu-metric shrinkage Furthermore seven process parametersthat have been shown to affect the product quality areconsidered ese include the injection speed injectionpressure cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time andmelt temperaturee injection speed andinjection pressure have been identified in [30 31] whereasthe cooling time packing pressure mold temperaturepacking time and melt temperature have been identified in[3 31ndash36] as having an effect on the product quality

e experiments in this work were conducted on aninjection molding unit known as the Arburg Allrounder420C [37] and a simple mold with product dimensionsdepicted in Figure 2 was used High-density polyethylene(M80064) produced by SABIC was used in the experimentsSome basic properties of the plastic extracted from [38] arelisted in Table 1

In order to arrive at the best combination of the processparameter for minimum cycle time a relationship between

the process parameter and the cycle time is to be constructedand optimized e optimization is subjected to constraintson the extent of acceptable product defect which are rep-resented by two other relationships between the productdefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and the processparameters

21 Test Points for Injection Molding Experiments e threerelationships mentioned previously are constructed fromdata obtained through actual injection molding experimentsperformed at combination sets of the process parametersese combination sets are selected through DOE in amanner that ensures that the design space is adequatelycovered In this study the central composite design (CCD)was adopted e CCD is a factorial or fractional factorialdesign with center points which are augmented with starpoints that enhance the estimation of curvature Dependingon the location of the star point the CCD can either becircumscribed inscribed or face-centered In the CCD thesample size is determined according to the followingequation

2f + 2fminus q+ 1 (1)

where f is the number of factors being considered (ie theprocess parameters in the current study) and q refers to thefraction of the full factorial to be used For a case where thereare numerous factors (eg fgt 5) a full factorial design(q 0) results in an enormous sample size In such a case it isadvisable to use the fractional factorial design which utilizesonly a fraction of the full factorial design without losing itsmain benefits A detailed treatment of the DOE can be foundin [39]

e complete design space for the seven processparameters is based on the upper and lower bounds of the

93mm

3mm

117mm

Figure 2 Geometry and dimensions of the injection-moldedproduct used in the experiments

Table 1 Properties for HDPE M80064 series (produced bySABIC)

Property Unit ValueStress at yield MPa 33Melt flow rate (at 190degC and 216 kg) g10min 8Density kgm3 964

Advances in Polymer Technology 3

parameters e corresponding bounds of these param-eters are listed in Table 2 e upper and lower bounds ofthe injection speed cooling time packing pressure andpacking times were suggested by experienced plastic tech-nicians whereas the bounds for the injection pressure moldtemperature and melt temperature are based on the rec-ommended ranges from the material producers [38] For thecurrent study a half-fraction (q 1) face-centered centralcomposite design was used Accordingly for the seven pa-rameters 79 data points were generated

22 Injection Molding Product Defect Quantification Tworelations relating the two defects (warpage and volumetricshrinkage) to the seven parameters need to be established Inorder to achieve this it is first necessary to quantify thedefects e defect quantification adopted in this work isdescribed as follows

221 Warpage Quantification e warpage experienced ininjection molding products can be defined as a deviation ofthe product geometry from the anticipated geometry In thisstudy the warpage is defined as the sum of the maximumout-of-plane displacement of the product edges which canbe expressed as

Wsum 1113944 ymaxi i 1 2 3 4 (2)

In equation (2) ymaxirefers to themaximum out-of-plane

displacement along the four edges of the product isdefinition has previously been used in [40]

222 Volumetric Shrinkage Quantification e volumetricshrinkage can be estimated by determining the differencebetween the anticipated product volume (Vanticipated) and theactual product volumes e anticipated product volume iscomputed from the expected product dimensions (based onthe diagram in Figure 2) whereas the actual product volumeis computed from the known product density and measuredmass e volumetric shrinkage Vshrinkage can thus beexpressed as

Vshrinkage Vanticipated minusm

ρ (3)

is expression has also been previously used in [40]

23 Injection Molding Experiments Injection molding ex-periments were performed on the 79 data points (previouslygenerated) Pictures of samples of products from the ex-periments are shown in Figure 3 Figure 3(a) shows aproduct with severe volumetric shrinkage and Figure 3(b)shows a product with severe warpage A product withminimal defects is shown in Figure 3(c)

Product defect including warpage and volumetricshrinkage was computed for the 79 products (usingequations (2) and (3) respectively) and are reported in

Table 3 Also listed in Table 3 are the corresponding cycletimes for each of the 79 products

3 Injection Molding Parameter Optimization

e injection molding process parameters for reduced cycletime subjected to constraints on the product defect are to bedetermined through optimization To achieve this it is nec-essary to develop the relationship between the process pa-rameters and the cycle time It is also necessary to develop twoother relationships between the two product defects and theprocess parameters e former relationship can then be op-timized subject to constraints on the defects (as described by thelatter two relationships) A description of the development ofthe three relationships followed by the formulation of theoptimization problem is presented in the following sections

31 Kriging Model A variety of models have previouslybeen used to represent the relationship between the pro-cess parameters and the product defect Some of thesetechniques include the artificial neural network [41ndash47]support vector regression [48] kriging [40 49] and re-sponse surface method [50ndash52] In this work we adopt thekriging model to develop the relationship between theprocess parameters and the product defect and the rela-tionship between the process parameters and the productcycle time

Kriging is a regression interpolation technique devel-oped by geologists in an attempt to predict the properties ofminerals in a specified region based on knowledge ofproperties in other neighboring regions [53] For this studythe Kriging model as well as the Matlab Kriging toolboxdescribed in [54] were used

e data obtained from the injectionmolding experimentsshown in Table 3 were used to generate the three relationshipsusing the kriging Matlab toolbox e three relationships havebeen plotted for the various process parameters as shown inFigures 4ndash6 respectively

ese plots provide some insight into the relation-ships between the cycle time and the process parametersas well as the relationship between the two defects andthe process parameters For instance in Figure 4(a) itcan be seen that the cycle time increases with decreasingmelt temperature It is observed in Figures 4(b) and 4(d)that the cycle time increases with increasing cooling timeand increasing packing time respectively which is an

Table 2 Lower and upper bounds for the test variables (bound forboth the DOE and optimization)

Test variables Units Lower bound Upper boundInjection speed mmsec 15 60Injection pressure bar 450 800Cooling time sec 10 30Packing pressure bar 100 400Mold temperature degC 15 45Packing time sec 3 9Melt temperature degC 200 250

4 Advances in Polymer Technology

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3 Products resulting from the injectionmolding experiments (a) Product with severe volumetric shrinkage (warpage of 81mm andvolumetric shrinkage of 649mm3) (b) product with severe warpage (warpage of 136mm and volumetric shrinkage of 625mm3) and(c) acceptable product (warpage of 29mm and volumetric shrinkage of 245mm3)

Table 3 Experimental results for warpage volumetric shrinkage and cycle time

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

1 15 450 457 10 100 15 9 200 58 397 3112 15 450 457 30 100 15 3 200 68 517 4393 15 450 457 10 400 15 3 200 6 459 2474 15 450 457 30 400 15 9 200 29 245 4985 15 800 462 10 100 15 3 200 45 526 2456 15 800 461 30 100 15 9 200 34 395 4987 15 800 460 10 400 15 9 200 39 255 3148 15 800 461 30 400 15 3 200 6 449 4389 60 450 452 10 100 15 3 200 44 538 23610 60 450 452 30 100 15 9 200 37 4 48911 60 450 452 10 400 15 9 200 35 263 30312 60 450 452 30 400 15 3 200 77 462 42713 60 800 785 10 100 15 9 200 58 434 29014 60 800 783 30 100 15 3 200 91 521 41915 60 800 791 10 400 15 3 200 7 41 22916 60 800 787 30 400 15 9 200 29 197 47917 15 450 447 10 100 45 3 200 47 533 25618 15 450 445 30 100 45 9 200 9 405 49919 15 450 450 10 400 45 9 200 51 324 31220 15 450 447 30 400 45 3 200 68 509 43821 15 800 445 10 100 45 9 200 4 41 30922 15 800 446 30 100 45 3 200 79 555 48823 15 800 444 10 400 45 3 200 96 517 24824 15 800 446 30 400 45 9 200 4 315 49825 60 450 453 10 100 45 9 200 45 419 29826 60 450 452 30 100 45 3 200 72 568 427

Advances in Polymer Technology 5

expected behavior In Figure 4(c) it is also observed thatthe cycle time increases with decreasing injectionpressure

e plots in Figure 5 reveal the behavior of thewarpage as a function of the process parameters InFigure 5(a) it is observed that the warpage increases with

Table 3 Continued

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

27 60 450 453 10 400 45 3 200 86 531 23328 60 450 453 30 400 45 9 200 45 325 48729 60 800 783 10 100 45 3 200 11 553 22430 60 800 779 30 100 45 9 200 38 414 47931 60 800 781 10 400 45 9 200 6 228 29432 60 800 780 30 400 45 3 200 79 427 41933 15 450 343 10 100 15 3 250 84 592 24434 15 450 342 30 100 15 9 250 52 385 49735 15 450 343 10 400 15 9 250 45 312 31436 15 450 344 30 400 15 3 250 8 535 43737 15 800 345 10 100 15 9 250 5 395 31238 15 800 345 30 100 15 3 250 76 585 43739 15 800 348 10 400 15 3 250 67 548 24640 15 800 349 30 400 15 9 250 64 302 49741 60 450 451 10 100 15 9 250 48 415 29542 60 450 451 30 100 15 3 250 6 606 42143 60 450 452 10 400 15 3 250 77 583 22944 60 450 452 30 400 15 9 250 52 32 48145 60 800 639 10 100 15 3 250 16 616 22646 60 800 639 30 100 15 9 250 71 407 47847 60 800 639 10 400 15 9 250 6 329 29548 60 800 642 30 400 15 3 250 91 548 41949 15 450 333 10 100 45 9 250 58 454 30850 15 450 334 30 100 45 3 250 79 621 43851 15 450 335 10 400 45 3 250 99 595 24352 15 450 338 30 400 45 9 250 84 384 49853 15 800 336 10 100 45 3 250 136 625 24354 15 800 338 30 100 45 9 250 88 443 49755 15 800 338 10 400 45 9 250 7 394 31056 15 800 337 30 400 45 3 250 86 587 43957 60 450 451 10 100 45 3 250 81 649 22658 60 450 452 30 100 45 9 250 76 463 48259 60 450 452 10 400 45 9 250 93 413 29460 60 450 452 30 400 45 3 250 83 611 42261 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 200 62 42 35462 375 625 511 20 250 30 6 250 8 484 35363 375 625 625 20 250 15 6 225 9 426 35364 375 625 625 20 250 45 6 225 36 487 35465 15 625 395 20 250 30 6 225 73 431 35966 60 625 628 20 250 30 6 225 76 451 35067 375 450 452 20 250 30 6 225 65 444 35668 375 800 580 20 250 30 6 225 76 445 35369 375 625 625 20 100 30 6 225 48 497 35470 375 625 625 20 400 30 6 225 75 427 35471 375 625 625 10 250 30 6 225 63 461 26172 375 625 625 30 250 30 6 225 57 45 45473 375 625 625 20 250 30 3 225 74 561 32474 375 625 625 20 250 30 9 225 56 363 38375 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 225 72 454 35376 60 800 800 10 100 45 9 250 765 431 28277 60 800 800 30 100 45 3 250 801 566 42278 60 800 800 10 400 45 3 250 112 453 21979 60 800 800 30 400 45 9 250 488 251 474

6 Advances in Polymer Technology

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 4: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

parameters e corresponding bounds of these param-eters are listed in Table 2 e upper and lower bounds ofthe injection speed cooling time packing pressure andpacking times were suggested by experienced plastic tech-nicians whereas the bounds for the injection pressure moldtemperature and melt temperature are based on the rec-ommended ranges from the material producers [38] For thecurrent study a half-fraction (q 1) face-centered centralcomposite design was used Accordingly for the seven pa-rameters 79 data points were generated

22 Injection Molding Product Defect Quantification Tworelations relating the two defects (warpage and volumetricshrinkage) to the seven parameters need to be established Inorder to achieve this it is first necessary to quantify thedefects e defect quantification adopted in this work isdescribed as follows

221 Warpage Quantification e warpage experienced ininjection molding products can be defined as a deviation ofthe product geometry from the anticipated geometry In thisstudy the warpage is defined as the sum of the maximumout-of-plane displacement of the product edges which canbe expressed as

Wsum 1113944 ymaxi i 1 2 3 4 (2)

In equation (2) ymaxirefers to themaximum out-of-plane

displacement along the four edges of the product isdefinition has previously been used in [40]

222 Volumetric Shrinkage Quantification e volumetricshrinkage can be estimated by determining the differencebetween the anticipated product volume (Vanticipated) and theactual product volumes e anticipated product volume iscomputed from the expected product dimensions (based onthe diagram in Figure 2) whereas the actual product volumeis computed from the known product density and measuredmass e volumetric shrinkage Vshrinkage can thus beexpressed as

Vshrinkage Vanticipated minusm

ρ (3)

is expression has also been previously used in [40]

23 Injection Molding Experiments Injection molding ex-periments were performed on the 79 data points (previouslygenerated) Pictures of samples of products from the ex-periments are shown in Figure 3 Figure 3(a) shows aproduct with severe volumetric shrinkage and Figure 3(b)shows a product with severe warpage A product withminimal defects is shown in Figure 3(c)

Product defect including warpage and volumetricshrinkage was computed for the 79 products (usingequations (2) and (3) respectively) and are reported in

Table 3 Also listed in Table 3 are the corresponding cycletimes for each of the 79 products

3 Injection Molding Parameter Optimization

e injection molding process parameters for reduced cycletime subjected to constraints on the product defect are to bedetermined through optimization To achieve this it is nec-essary to develop the relationship between the process pa-rameters and the cycle time It is also necessary to develop twoother relationships between the two product defects and theprocess parameters e former relationship can then be op-timized subject to constraints on the defects (as described by thelatter two relationships) A description of the development ofthe three relationships followed by the formulation of theoptimization problem is presented in the following sections

31 Kriging Model A variety of models have previouslybeen used to represent the relationship between the pro-cess parameters and the product defect Some of thesetechniques include the artificial neural network [41ndash47]support vector regression [48] kriging [40 49] and re-sponse surface method [50ndash52] In this work we adopt thekriging model to develop the relationship between theprocess parameters and the product defect and the rela-tionship between the process parameters and the productcycle time

Kriging is a regression interpolation technique devel-oped by geologists in an attempt to predict the properties ofminerals in a specified region based on knowledge ofproperties in other neighboring regions [53] For this studythe Kriging model as well as the Matlab Kriging toolboxdescribed in [54] were used

e data obtained from the injectionmolding experimentsshown in Table 3 were used to generate the three relationshipsusing the kriging Matlab toolbox e three relationships havebeen plotted for the various process parameters as shown inFigures 4ndash6 respectively

ese plots provide some insight into the relation-ships between the cycle time and the process parametersas well as the relationship between the two defects andthe process parameters For instance in Figure 4(a) itcan be seen that the cycle time increases with decreasingmelt temperature It is observed in Figures 4(b) and 4(d)that the cycle time increases with increasing cooling timeand increasing packing time respectively which is an

Table 2 Lower and upper bounds for the test variables (bound forboth the DOE and optimization)

Test variables Units Lower bound Upper boundInjection speed mmsec 15 60Injection pressure bar 450 800Cooling time sec 10 30Packing pressure bar 100 400Mold temperature degC 15 45Packing time sec 3 9Melt temperature degC 200 250

4 Advances in Polymer Technology

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3 Products resulting from the injectionmolding experiments (a) Product with severe volumetric shrinkage (warpage of 81mm andvolumetric shrinkage of 649mm3) (b) product with severe warpage (warpage of 136mm and volumetric shrinkage of 625mm3) and(c) acceptable product (warpage of 29mm and volumetric shrinkage of 245mm3)

Table 3 Experimental results for warpage volumetric shrinkage and cycle time

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

1 15 450 457 10 100 15 9 200 58 397 3112 15 450 457 30 100 15 3 200 68 517 4393 15 450 457 10 400 15 3 200 6 459 2474 15 450 457 30 400 15 9 200 29 245 4985 15 800 462 10 100 15 3 200 45 526 2456 15 800 461 30 100 15 9 200 34 395 4987 15 800 460 10 400 15 9 200 39 255 3148 15 800 461 30 400 15 3 200 6 449 4389 60 450 452 10 100 15 3 200 44 538 23610 60 450 452 30 100 15 9 200 37 4 48911 60 450 452 10 400 15 9 200 35 263 30312 60 450 452 30 400 15 3 200 77 462 42713 60 800 785 10 100 15 9 200 58 434 29014 60 800 783 30 100 15 3 200 91 521 41915 60 800 791 10 400 15 3 200 7 41 22916 60 800 787 30 400 15 9 200 29 197 47917 15 450 447 10 100 45 3 200 47 533 25618 15 450 445 30 100 45 9 200 9 405 49919 15 450 450 10 400 45 9 200 51 324 31220 15 450 447 30 400 45 3 200 68 509 43821 15 800 445 10 100 45 9 200 4 41 30922 15 800 446 30 100 45 3 200 79 555 48823 15 800 444 10 400 45 3 200 96 517 24824 15 800 446 30 400 45 9 200 4 315 49825 60 450 453 10 100 45 9 200 45 419 29826 60 450 452 30 100 45 3 200 72 568 427

Advances in Polymer Technology 5

expected behavior In Figure 4(c) it is also observed thatthe cycle time increases with decreasing injectionpressure

e plots in Figure 5 reveal the behavior of thewarpage as a function of the process parameters InFigure 5(a) it is observed that the warpage increases with

Table 3 Continued

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

27 60 450 453 10 400 45 3 200 86 531 23328 60 450 453 30 400 45 9 200 45 325 48729 60 800 783 10 100 45 3 200 11 553 22430 60 800 779 30 100 45 9 200 38 414 47931 60 800 781 10 400 45 9 200 6 228 29432 60 800 780 30 400 45 3 200 79 427 41933 15 450 343 10 100 15 3 250 84 592 24434 15 450 342 30 100 15 9 250 52 385 49735 15 450 343 10 400 15 9 250 45 312 31436 15 450 344 30 400 15 3 250 8 535 43737 15 800 345 10 100 15 9 250 5 395 31238 15 800 345 30 100 15 3 250 76 585 43739 15 800 348 10 400 15 3 250 67 548 24640 15 800 349 30 400 15 9 250 64 302 49741 60 450 451 10 100 15 9 250 48 415 29542 60 450 451 30 100 15 3 250 6 606 42143 60 450 452 10 400 15 3 250 77 583 22944 60 450 452 30 400 15 9 250 52 32 48145 60 800 639 10 100 15 3 250 16 616 22646 60 800 639 30 100 15 9 250 71 407 47847 60 800 639 10 400 15 9 250 6 329 29548 60 800 642 30 400 15 3 250 91 548 41949 15 450 333 10 100 45 9 250 58 454 30850 15 450 334 30 100 45 3 250 79 621 43851 15 450 335 10 400 45 3 250 99 595 24352 15 450 338 30 400 45 9 250 84 384 49853 15 800 336 10 100 45 3 250 136 625 24354 15 800 338 30 100 45 9 250 88 443 49755 15 800 338 10 400 45 9 250 7 394 31056 15 800 337 30 400 45 3 250 86 587 43957 60 450 451 10 100 45 3 250 81 649 22658 60 450 452 30 100 45 9 250 76 463 48259 60 450 452 10 400 45 9 250 93 413 29460 60 450 452 30 400 45 3 250 83 611 42261 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 200 62 42 35462 375 625 511 20 250 30 6 250 8 484 35363 375 625 625 20 250 15 6 225 9 426 35364 375 625 625 20 250 45 6 225 36 487 35465 15 625 395 20 250 30 6 225 73 431 35966 60 625 628 20 250 30 6 225 76 451 35067 375 450 452 20 250 30 6 225 65 444 35668 375 800 580 20 250 30 6 225 76 445 35369 375 625 625 20 100 30 6 225 48 497 35470 375 625 625 20 400 30 6 225 75 427 35471 375 625 625 10 250 30 6 225 63 461 26172 375 625 625 30 250 30 6 225 57 45 45473 375 625 625 20 250 30 3 225 74 561 32474 375 625 625 20 250 30 9 225 56 363 38375 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 225 72 454 35376 60 800 800 10 100 45 9 250 765 431 28277 60 800 800 30 100 45 3 250 801 566 42278 60 800 800 10 400 45 3 250 112 453 21979 60 800 800 30 400 45 9 250 488 251 474

6 Advances in Polymer Technology

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 5: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3 Products resulting from the injectionmolding experiments (a) Product with severe volumetric shrinkage (warpage of 81mm andvolumetric shrinkage of 649mm3) (b) product with severe warpage (warpage of 136mm and volumetric shrinkage of 625mm3) and(c) acceptable product (warpage of 29mm and volumetric shrinkage of 245mm3)

Table 3 Experimental results for warpage volumetric shrinkage and cycle time

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

1 15 450 457 10 100 15 9 200 58 397 3112 15 450 457 30 100 15 3 200 68 517 4393 15 450 457 10 400 15 3 200 6 459 2474 15 450 457 30 400 15 9 200 29 245 4985 15 800 462 10 100 15 3 200 45 526 2456 15 800 461 30 100 15 9 200 34 395 4987 15 800 460 10 400 15 9 200 39 255 3148 15 800 461 30 400 15 3 200 6 449 4389 60 450 452 10 100 15 3 200 44 538 23610 60 450 452 30 100 15 9 200 37 4 48911 60 450 452 10 400 15 9 200 35 263 30312 60 450 452 30 400 15 3 200 77 462 42713 60 800 785 10 100 15 9 200 58 434 29014 60 800 783 30 100 15 3 200 91 521 41915 60 800 791 10 400 15 3 200 7 41 22916 60 800 787 30 400 15 9 200 29 197 47917 15 450 447 10 100 45 3 200 47 533 25618 15 450 445 30 100 45 9 200 9 405 49919 15 450 450 10 400 45 9 200 51 324 31220 15 450 447 30 400 45 3 200 68 509 43821 15 800 445 10 100 45 9 200 4 41 30922 15 800 446 30 100 45 3 200 79 555 48823 15 800 444 10 400 45 3 200 96 517 24824 15 800 446 30 400 45 9 200 4 315 49825 60 450 453 10 100 45 9 200 45 419 29826 60 450 452 30 100 45 3 200 72 568 427

Advances in Polymer Technology 5

expected behavior In Figure 4(c) it is also observed thatthe cycle time increases with decreasing injectionpressure

e plots in Figure 5 reveal the behavior of thewarpage as a function of the process parameters InFigure 5(a) it is observed that the warpage increases with

Table 3 Continued

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

27 60 450 453 10 400 45 3 200 86 531 23328 60 450 453 30 400 45 9 200 45 325 48729 60 800 783 10 100 45 3 200 11 553 22430 60 800 779 30 100 45 9 200 38 414 47931 60 800 781 10 400 45 9 200 6 228 29432 60 800 780 30 400 45 3 200 79 427 41933 15 450 343 10 100 15 3 250 84 592 24434 15 450 342 30 100 15 9 250 52 385 49735 15 450 343 10 400 15 9 250 45 312 31436 15 450 344 30 400 15 3 250 8 535 43737 15 800 345 10 100 15 9 250 5 395 31238 15 800 345 30 100 15 3 250 76 585 43739 15 800 348 10 400 15 3 250 67 548 24640 15 800 349 30 400 15 9 250 64 302 49741 60 450 451 10 100 15 9 250 48 415 29542 60 450 451 30 100 15 3 250 6 606 42143 60 450 452 10 400 15 3 250 77 583 22944 60 450 452 30 400 15 9 250 52 32 48145 60 800 639 10 100 15 3 250 16 616 22646 60 800 639 30 100 15 9 250 71 407 47847 60 800 639 10 400 15 9 250 6 329 29548 60 800 642 30 400 15 3 250 91 548 41949 15 450 333 10 100 45 9 250 58 454 30850 15 450 334 30 100 45 3 250 79 621 43851 15 450 335 10 400 45 3 250 99 595 24352 15 450 338 30 400 45 9 250 84 384 49853 15 800 336 10 100 45 3 250 136 625 24354 15 800 338 30 100 45 9 250 88 443 49755 15 800 338 10 400 45 9 250 7 394 31056 15 800 337 30 400 45 3 250 86 587 43957 60 450 451 10 100 45 3 250 81 649 22658 60 450 452 30 100 45 9 250 76 463 48259 60 450 452 10 400 45 9 250 93 413 29460 60 450 452 30 400 45 3 250 83 611 42261 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 200 62 42 35462 375 625 511 20 250 30 6 250 8 484 35363 375 625 625 20 250 15 6 225 9 426 35364 375 625 625 20 250 45 6 225 36 487 35465 15 625 395 20 250 30 6 225 73 431 35966 60 625 628 20 250 30 6 225 76 451 35067 375 450 452 20 250 30 6 225 65 444 35668 375 800 580 20 250 30 6 225 76 445 35369 375 625 625 20 100 30 6 225 48 497 35470 375 625 625 20 400 30 6 225 75 427 35471 375 625 625 10 250 30 6 225 63 461 26172 375 625 625 30 250 30 6 225 57 45 45473 375 625 625 20 250 30 3 225 74 561 32474 375 625 625 20 250 30 9 225 56 363 38375 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 225 72 454 35376 60 800 800 10 100 45 9 250 765 431 28277 60 800 800 30 100 45 3 250 801 566 42278 60 800 800 10 400 45 3 250 112 453 21979 60 800 800 30 400 45 9 250 488 251 474

6 Advances in Polymer Technology

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 6: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

expected behavior In Figure 4(c) it is also observed thatthe cycle time increases with decreasing injectionpressure

e plots in Figure 5 reveal the behavior of thewarpage as a function of the process parameters InFigure 5(a) it is observed that the warpage increases with

Table 3 Continued

Injectionspeed

Injectionpressure

Measuredinjectionpressure

Coolingtime

Packingpressure

Moldtemp

Packingtime

Melttemp Warpage Volumetric

shrinkageCycletime

mms bar bar sec bar degC sec degC mm cm3 secIS IP IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT W1 W2 Cyct

27 60 450 453 10 400 45 3 200 86 531 23328 60 450 453 30 400 45 9 200 45 325 48729 60 800 783 10 100 45 3 200 11 553 22430 60 800 779 30 100 45 9 200 38 414 47931 60 800 781 10 400 45 9 200 6 228 29432 60 800 780 30 400 45 3 200 79 427 41933 15 450 343 10 100 15 3 250 84 592 24434 15 450 342 30 100 15 9 250 52 385 49735 15 450 343 10 400 15 9 250 45 312 31436 15 450 344 30 400 15 3 250 8 535 43737 15 800 345 10 100 15 9 250 5 395 31238 15 800 345 30 100 15 3 250 76 585 43739 15 800 348 10 400 15 3 250 67 548 24640 15 800 349 30 400 15 9 250 64 302 49741 60 450 451 10 100 15 9 250 48 415 29542 60 450 451 30 100 15 3 250 6 606 42143 60 450 452 10 400 15 3 250 77 583 22944 60 450 452 30 400 15 9 250 52 32 48145 60 800 639 10 100 15 3 250 16 616 22646 60 800 639 30 100 15 9 250 71 407 47847 60 800 639 10 400 15 9 250 6 329 29548 60 800 642 30 400 15 3 250 91 548 41949 15 450 333 10 100 45 9 250 58 454 30850 15 450 334 30 100 45 3 250 79 621 43851 15 450 335 10 400 45 3 250 99 595 24352 15 450 338 30 400 45 9 250 84 384 49853 15 800 336 10 100 45 3 250 136 625 24354 15 800 338 30 100 45 9 250 88 443 49755 15 800 338 10 400 45 9 250 7 394 31056 15 800 337 30 400 45 3 250 86 587 43957 60 450 451 10 100 45 3 250 81 649 22658 60 450 452 30 100 45 9 250 76 463 48259 60 450 452 10 400 45 9 250 93 413 29460 60 450 452 30 400 45 3 250 83 611 42261 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 200 62 42 35462 375 625 511 20 250 30 6 250 8 484 35363 375 625 625 20 250 15 6 225 9 426 35364 375 625 625 20 250 45 6 225 36 487 35465 15 625 395 20 250 30 6 225 73 431 35966 60 625 628 20 250 30 6 225 76 451 35067 375 450 452 20 250 30 6 225 65 444 35668 375 800 580 20 250 30 6 225 76 445 35369 375 625 625 20 100 30 6 225 48 497 35470 375 625 625 20 400 30 6 225 75 427 35471 375 625 625 10 250 30 6 225 63 461 26172 375 625 625 30 250 30 6 225 57 45 45473 375 625 625 20 250 30 3 225 74 561 32474 375 625 625 20 250 30 9 225 56 363 38375 375 625 625 20 250 30 6 225 72 454 35376 60 800 800 10 100 45 9 250 765 431 28277 60 800 800 30 100 45 3 250 801 566 42278 60 800 800 10 400 45 3 250 112 453 21979 60 800 800 30 400 45 9 250 488 251 474

6 Advances in Polymer Technology

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 7: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

Cycle time

Mold temperature (degC) Melt temperature (degC)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

358

356

354

352

35

34850 40 30 20 10 260

240

200220

(a)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

50

45

40

35

30

2530

2520

1510

5060

403020

10

(b)

Cycle time

Packing pressure (bar) Injection pressure (bar)

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

36

35

400300

200100

400500

600800

700

355

345

(c)

Cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Mold temperature (degC)Packing time (sec)

38

36

34

32

3010

86

42

5040

3020

10

(d)

Figure 4 Plots showing the relation between cycle time and various process parameters e plots are for cycle time versus (a) melttemperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing timeand mold temperature

Warpage

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

War

page

(mm

)

858

757

656

55260

240220

200 1020

3050

40

(a)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Cooling time (degC)Injection speed (mmsec)

10

8

6

4

230

2520

1510

5060

4030

2010

(b)

Figure 5 Continued

Advances in Polymer Technology 7

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 8: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Packing pressure (bar)

Injection pressure (bar)

400500

600 700800 400

300200

100

8

4

6

2

0

(c)

Warpage

War

page

(mm

)

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

9

8

7

6

54

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 5 Plots showing the relation between warpage and various process parameterse plots are for warpage verses (a) melt temperatureand mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and (d) packing time and moldtemperature

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC)Melt temperature (degC)

45

5

4260

240220

200

50

3020

10

40

(a)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

49

48

47

46

45

4410

1520

2530 60

5030

2010

40Cooling time (degC) Injection speed (mmsec)

(b)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Packing pressure (bar)Injection pressure (bar)

400 500600

700800 400

300200

100

55

45

5

4

3

35

(c)

Volumetric shrinkage

Vol

shrin

kage

(cm

3 )

Mold temperature (degC) Packing time (sec)

6

5

65

55

45

35

4

108

64

250

4030

2010

(d)

Figure 6 Plots showing the relation between volumetric shrinkage and various process parameters e plots are for volumetric shrinkageversus (a) melt temperature and mold temperature (b) cooling time and injection speed (c) injection pressure and packing pressure and(d) packing time and mold temperature

8 Advances in Polymer Technology

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 9: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

increasing melt temperature as well as increasing moldtemperature (also observed in Figure 5(d)) From the plotsin Figures 5(b)ndash5(d) it can be deduced that the warpagedecreases with increasing cooling time increasing in-jection pressure increasing packing pressure and in-creasing packing time

e effects of the various process parameters on thevolumetric shrinkage may be observed in the plots ofFigure 6 It can be seen in Figure 6(a) that the volumetricshrinkage increases for an increase in both the melt tem-perature and mold temperature (also seen in Figure 6(d))It can also be observed that the volumetric shrinkage in-creases for a decrease in the cooling time decrease in theinjection speed a decrease in the injection pressure adecrease in the packing pressure and a decrease in thepacking time

Finally from the plots in Figures 4ndash6 some importantstatements can be made regarding the effect of the processparameters on the product defect and the product cycle timeBy observing Figures 4(b) 4(d) 5(b) 5(d) 6(b) and 6(d) itcan be stated that the injection speed the cooling time andthe packing time have the opposing effect of increasing thecycle time while reducing the product defects (or increasingthe product defect while reducing the product cycle time)On the other hand it can be inferred from Figures 4(a) 4(c)5(a) 5(c) 6(a) and 6(c) that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect ese observations and inferences have beensummarized in Table 4

32 Parameter Optimization e three relationships pre-viously developed can be used to set up an optimizationproblem that can be solved in order to determine the bestcombination of process parameters that will lead to theminimum product cycle time while taking into account theproduct quality (or extent of product defect) e optimi-zation problem can be expressed as

Minimize F Cyct IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857

Such that Wsum IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leWallowable

Vshrinkage IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT( 1113857leVallowable

15le IS le 60mms

450le IP le 800 bar

10leCt le 30 sec

100lePP le 400 bar

15leMoT le 45degC

3lePt le 9 sec

200leMT le 250degC

(4)

In equation (4) Cyct is the cycle time to be minimizedwhereas IS IP Ct PP MOTPt and MT refer to the injectionspeed the injection pressure the cooling time the packingpressure the mold temperature the packing time and the melttemperature respectively Also in equation (4) Vallowable andWallowable refer to the maximum allowable values of the vol-umetric shrinkage and warpage respectively ey indicate thelimits of the defect that may be considered acceptable on theproduct and should not be exceeded To solve the optimizationproblem it is sufficient to specify appropriate values forVallowable and Wallowable However to gain an insight into theproblem a range of values between the lower and extremevalues of the product defects (see Table 3) were specified forVallowable and Wallowable In particular 100 sample points wereselected in a grid-like fashion to cover the domain within theextremumse extreme lower and upper defect values for thewarpage and the volumetric shrinkage are listed for conve-nience in Table 5

Table 4 Effect of process parameters on the on the product defect and the product cycle time

Processparameters Warpage Volumetric

shrinkage Comment

Injection speed

Opposingeffect Opposing effect

Reducing the injection speed decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Cooling time Increasing the cooling time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Packing time Increasing the packing time decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage but increasesthe cycle time

Injectionpressure

Assistingeffect Assisting effect

Increasing the injection pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage whiledecreasing the cycle time

Moldtemperature

Reducing the mold temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Melttemperature

Reducing the melt temperature decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage anddecreases the cycle time

Packingpressure Not clear Not clear Increasing the packing pressure decreases the warpage and vol shrinkage however

from Figure 4c the effect on the cycle time is not clear

Table 5 Extreme values of the defect as reported in Table 3

Lower extreme Upper extremeVallowable 197 649Wallowable 29 16

Advances in Polymer Technology 9

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 10: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

Table 6 Extreme values of the defects maximum allowable values for the volumetric shrinkage and warpage with corresponding opti-mization results

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

1 290 197 6000 80000 3000 40000 1500 900 21058 47632 290 247 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47123 290 297 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47124 290 348 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47125 290 398 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47126 290 448 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47127 290 498 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47128 290 549 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 47129 290 599 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471210 290 649 6000 80000 2971 40000 2774 900 21593 471211 436 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432312 436 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290613 436 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290614 436 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290615 436 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290616 436 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290617 436 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290618 436 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290619 436 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290620 436 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2265 892 20000 290621 581 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432322 581 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277723 581 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264524 581 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264525 581 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264526 581 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264527 581 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264528 581 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264529 581 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264530 581 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2667 682 20000 264531 727 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432332 727 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277733 727 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257134 727 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243335 727 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243336 727 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243337 727 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243338 727 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243339 727 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243340 727 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2870 494 20000 243341 872 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432342 872 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277743 872 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257144 872 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239945 872 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225546 872 448 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225547 872 498 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225548 872 549 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225549 872 599 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225550 872 649 6000 80000 1000 40000 2953 324 20000 225551 1018 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432352 1018 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277753 1018 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257154 1018 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239955 1018 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225056 1018 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219757 1018 498 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 2183

10 Advances in Polymer Technology

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 11: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

e optimization problem was solved (for each of the100 sample points of Vallowable and Wallowable) using theFmincon function available in the Matlab Optimizationtoolbox e Fmincon function utilizes a sequential qua-dratic programming (SQP) algorithm which is an iterativetechnique used to solve nonlinearly constrained optimiza-tion problems is technique has been found to be aneffective tool when dealing with such problems and furtherdetails of the Matlab function can be found in [55]

e optimization results are presented in Table 6 esecond and third columns in the table list the values ofWallowable and Vallowable whereas the remaining columns listthe optimized parameters and the minimum product cycle

time for the corresponding optimization e results inTable 6 have also been plotted in Figure 7e plot illustratesthe competing objectives of lowering the cycle time andlowering the product defects It can be seen from the plotthat as the volumetric shrinkage constraint and warpageconstraints are lowered the optimized product cycle timeincreases is behavior can be explained by previous ob-servations as detailed in Table 4

In order to assess the optimization process an additionalinjectionmolding run was conducted with optimization resultschosen randomly from Table 6 For this run process pa-rameters for sample 14 were used e picture of the resultingproduct from this run is shown in Figure 8 Using equations (2)

Table 6 Continued

Wallowable VallowableOptimized parameters Optimum product cycle time

IS IP Ct PP MoT Pt MT Cyct

mm cm3 mms bar sec bar degC sec degC sec

58 1018 549 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218359 1018 599 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218360 1018 649 6000 80000 1000 27905 3177 300 22461 218361 1163 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432362 1163 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277763 1163 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257164 1163 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239965 1163 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225066 1163 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219767 1163 498 6000 80000 1000 26343 3326 300 24591 216268 1163 549 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216269 1163 599 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216270 1163 649 6000 80000 1000 24630 3321 300 24494 216271 1309 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432372 1309 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277773 1309 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257174 1309 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239975 1309 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225076 1309 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219777 1309 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215978 1309 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215679 1309 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215680 1309 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215681 1454 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432382 1454 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277783 1454 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257184 1454 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239985 1454 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225086 1454 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219787 1454 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215988 1454 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215689 1454 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215690 1454 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215691 1600 197 6000 80000 2557 40000 1500 900 20000 432392 1600 247 6000 80000 1000 40000 2362 789 20000 277793 1600 297 6000 80000 1000 40000 2507 615 20000 257194 1600 348 6000 80000 1000 40000 2584 459 20000 239995 1600 398 6000 80000 1000 40000 2615 317 20000 225096 1600 448 6000 80000 1000 35370 3059 300 22280 219797 1600 498 6000 80000 1000 27032 3300 300 25000 215998 1600 549 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 215699 1600 599 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156100 1600 649 6000 80000 1000 21684 3264 300 25000 2156

Advances in Polymer Technology 11

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 12: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

and (3) the warpage and the volumetric shrinkage were cal-culated for this producte corresponding values are reportedin Table 7 Also in Table 7 the optimization validation ex-perimental results are compared to the optimization resultsfrom the simulatione comparison revealed reasonably closeresults with a difference in the cycle time the warpage andvolumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8 respectively

4 Summary and Concluding Remarks

e work in this study sought to develop an optimizationframework for determining the minimum product cycletime while placing constraints on the product defect eprocess involved developing three relationships relating thedefects (warpage and volumetric shrinkage) and productcycle time respectively to seven process parameters

(injection speed injection pressure cooling time packingpressure mold temperature packing time and melttemperature) e three relationships were developedbased on data obtained through actual injection moldingexperiments Surface plots of the three relationshipsrevealed a number of important points Firstly that thecooling time and the packing time have the opposing effectof increasing the cycle time while reducing the productdefects and secondly that the injection pressure the moldtemperature and the melt temperature have a supportingeffect of lowering the product cycle time while lowering theproduct defect

e relationship for the product cycle time was mini-mized subject to constraints on the product defects (de-scribed by the other two relationships) e optimizationresults illustrated competing objectives of lowering the cycle

Optimum cycle time

Cyc

le ti

me (

sec)

Vol shrinkage constraint Warpage constraint

50

45

40

35

30

25

201 2 3 4 5 6 7 15

10

05

Figure 7 Optimization results showing optimum cycle times for a combination of the volumetric shrinkage and warpage constraints

Figure 8 Picture of the optimization validation product (warpage constraint of 436 and volumetric shrinkage constraint of 348)

Table 7 Comparison of the optimization simulation results to the experimental validation results for the optimum cycle time warpage andvolumetric shrinkage (the experimental validation was conducted based on the optimized process parameters and the resulting cycle timewarpage and volumetric shrinkage are compared to optimum simulation results as shown in the table)

Optimized cycle time Warpage Vol shrinkageOptimization results from the simulation (sample 14 in Table 6) 2906 436 348Experimental validation results (inj molding run for sample 14 parameters in Table 6) 310 45 32Difference 67 32 80

12 Advances in Polymer Technology

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 13: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

time against lowering the product defects From the twoprevious observations it may be concluded that the coolingtime and the packing time are responsible for the competingobjectives (ie in order to have a product with good qualitywe need to increase the cooling time and packing time whichin turn increases the cycle time) On the other hand theinjection pressure the mold temperature and the melttemperature are factors that aid in achieving the twoobjectives

As a means to validate the optimization process anadditional injection molding experiment was performed forone of the optimization results e additional experimentalresults showed reasonably close agreement with the simu-lation optimization results differing in the cycle time thewarpage and volumetric shrinkage by 67 32 and 8respectively

e optimization framework procedure outlined in thiswork was demonstrated using a simple product specimen andwas able to achieve the intended outcome ere are howeversome important points that should be mentioned regarding theuse of the procedure Firstly correct defect quantification is keyto attaining credible results Care should thus be taken in de-termining the required quantification e product specimenused to demonstrate the procedure is a simple flat specimenwhereas real-life products have more complex geometries andwill require proper procedures for defect quantification Sec-ondly the accuracy of the final results is dictated by howwell thedeveloped relationships are able to represent the product cycletime and product defects and howwell the optimization routineis able to determine the optimum It is thus important tocompare those relationships to known trends to establish theiraccuracy before proceeding to the optimization stage It is alsorecommended to perform validation tests such as performed inthis study so as to have better confidence in the results

e matter of cycle time reduction is an important issue inthe injection molding industry is is because reducing cycletime (even seconds) will lead to a substantial gain in pro-duction However reducing cycle time may have an adverseeffect on product quality e work in this study sought to findsolutions to this matter Based on the results from this work itis the belief of the author that such an optimization frameworkcan easy be adopted in the industry to aid the injectionmoldingengineer as well as managers in making decisions on theappropriate process parameters that will result in acceptableproduct cycle times for acceptable product defect

Data Availability

e experimental data used to support the findings of thisstudy are included within the article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e author acknowledges support from the Scientific Re-search Deanship at Qassim University as well as the

technical support offered by the Higher Institute for PlasticFabrication (HIPF) in Riyadh (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

References

[1] D V Rosato and M G Rosato Injection Molding HandbookSpringer New York NY USA 3rd edition 2000

[2] M Khan S K Afaq N U Khan and S Ahmad ldquoCycle timereduction in injection molding process by selection of robustcooling channel designrdquo ISRN Mechanical Engineeringvol 2014 Article ID 968484 8 pages 2014

[3] S Kitayama H Miyakawa M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of injection molding process param-eters for short cycle time and warpage reduction usingconformal cooling channelrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 88 no 5ndash8pp 1735ndash1744 2017

[4] H-S Park and X-P Dang ldquoDevelopment of a smart plasticinjection mold with conformal cooling channelsrdquo ProcediaManufacturing vol 10 pp 48ndash59 2017

[5] C Fernandes A J Pontes and J C Viana ldquoModeling andoptimization of the injection-molding process a reviewrdquoAdvances in Polymer Technology vol 37 no 2 pp 1ndash29 2018

[6] S Kitayama R Ishizuki M Takano Y Kubo and S AibaldquoOptimization of mold temperature profile and process pa-rameters for weld line reduction and short cycle time in rapidheat cycle moldingrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 5ndash8 pp 1735ndash17442019

[7] Y Wang K-M Yu and C C L Wang ldquoSpiral and conformalcooling in plastic injectionmoldingrdquoComputer-Aided Designvol 63 pp 1ndash11 2015

[8] E Sachs E Wylonis S Allen M Cima and H Guo ldquoPro-duction of injection molding tooling with conformal coolingchannels using the three dimensional printing processrdquoPolymer Engineering amp Science vol 40 no 5 pp 1232ndash12472000

[9] X Xu E Sachs and S Allen ldquoe design of conformal coolingchannels in injection molding toolingrdquo Polymer Engineeringamp Science vol 41 no 7 pp 1265ndash1279 2001

[10] D E Dimla M Camilotto and F Miani ldquoDesign and op-timisation of conformal cooling channels in injectionmoulding toolsrdquo Journal of Materials Processing Technologyvol 164-165 no 1 pp 1294ndash1300 2005

[11] J C Ferreira and AMateus ldquoStudies of rapid soft tooling withconformal cooling channels for plastic injection mouldingrdquoJournal of Materials Processing Technology vol 142 no 2pp 508ndash516 2003

[12] S A Jahan and H El-Mounayri ldquoOptimal conformal coolingchannels in 3D printed dies for plastic injection moldingrdquoProcedia Manufacturing vol 5 pp 888ndash900 2016

[13] Z Li X Wang J Gu et al ldquoTopology optimization for thedesign of conformal cooling system in thin-wall injectionmolding based on BEMrdquo 4e International Journal of Ad-vanced Manufacturing Technology vol 94 no 1ndash4pp 1041ndash1059 2018

[14] S Kitayama Y Yamazaki M Takano and S Aiba ldquoNu-merical and experimental investigation of process parametersoptimization in plastic injection molding using multi-criteriadecision makingrdquo Simulation Modelling Practice and 4eoryvol 85 pp 95ndash105 2018

[15] M S Shinde and K M Ashtankar ldquoEffect of different shapesof conformal cooling channel on the parameters of injection

Advances in Polymer Technology 13

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 14: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

moldingrdquo Computers Materials amp Continua vol 54 no 1pp 287ndash306 2018

[16] J M Mercado-Colmenero C Martin-Dontildeate M Rodriguez-Santiago F Moral-Pulido and M A Rubio-Paramio ldquoA newconformal cooling lattice design procedure for injectionmolding applications based on expert algorithmsrdquo 4e In-ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 102 no 5ndash8 pp 1719ndash1746 2019

[17] H-S Park X-P Dang D-S Nguyen and S Kumar ldquoDesignof advanced injection mold to increase cooling efficiencyrdquoInternational Journal of Precision Engineering andManufacturing-Green Technology vol 7 no 2 pp 319ndash3282020

[18] C-C Kuo Y-J Zhu Y-Z Wu and Z-Y You ldquoDevelopmentand application of a large injection mold with conformalcooling channelsrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 103 no 1ndash4 pp 689ndash7012019

[19] K W Dalgarno T D Stewart and J M Allport ldquoLayermanufactured production tooling incorporating conformalheating channels for transfer moulding of elastomer com-poundsrdquo Plastics Rubber and Composites vol 30 no 8pp 384ndash388 2001

[20] P Zhao H Zhou Y Li and D Li ldquoProcess parametersoptimization of injection molding using a fast strip analysis asa surrogate modelrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 49 no 9ndash12 pp 949ndash9592010

[21] J Cheng Z Liu and J Tan ldquoMultiobjective optimization ofinjection molding parameters based on soft computing andvariable complexity methodrdquo 4e International Journal ofAdvanced Manufacturing Technology vol 66 no 5ndash8pp 907ndash916 2013

[22] S Kitayama M Yokoyama M Takano and S Aiba ldquoMulti-objective optimization of variable packing pressure profileand process parameters in plastic injection molding forminimizing warpage and cycle timerdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 92no 9ndash12 pp 3991ndash3999 2017

[23] A Alvarado-Iniesta O Cuate and O Schutze ldquoMulti-ob-jective and many objective design of plastic injection moldingprocessrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 102 no 9ndash12 pp 3165ndash31802019

[24] C Didaskalou J Kupai L Cseri et al ldquoMembrane-graftedasymmetric organocatalyst for an integrated synthesis-sepa-ration platformrdquo ACS Catalysis vol 8 no 8 pp 7430ndash74382018

[25] M Pettinato A A Casazza P F Ferrari D Palombo andP Perego ldquoEco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants fromspent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extractionprocess optimization kinetic modeling and biological vali-dationrdquo Food and Bioproducts Processing vol 114 pp 31ndash422019

[26] B Cao L A Adutwum A O Oliynyk et al ldquoHow to optimizematerials and devices via design of experiments and machinelearning demonstration using organic photovoltaicsrdquo ACSNano vol 12 no 8 pp 7434ndash7444 2018

[27] J Moller K B Kuchemuller T Steinmetz K S Koopmannand R Portner ldquoModel-assisted design of experiments as aconcept for knowledge-based bioprocess developmentrdquoBioprocess and Biosystems Engineering vol 42 no 5pp 867ndash882 2019

[28] G Szekely B Henriques M Gil and C Alvarez ldquoExperi-mental design for the optimization and robustness testing of aliquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methodfor the trace analysis of the potentially genotoxic 13-diiso-propylureardquo Drug Testing and Analysis vol 6 no 9pp 898ndash908 2014

[29] M Eliasson S Rannar R Madsen et al ldquoStrategy for opti-mizing LC-MS data processing in metabolomics a design ofexperiments approachrdquo Analytical Chemistry vol 84 no 15pp 6869ndash6876 2012

[30] W-J Deng C-T Chen C-H Sun W-C Chen andC-P Chen ldquoAn effective approach for process parameteroptimization in injection molding of plastic housing com-ponentsrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineeringvol 47 no 9 pp 910ndash919 2008

[31] G Singh M K Pradhan and A Verma ldquoMulti Responseoptimization of injection moulding Process parameters toreduce cycle time and warpagerdquo in Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference on Emerging Trends in Materials andManufacturing Engineering (IMME17) Tamil Nadu IndiaMarch 2017

[32] X-P Dang ldquoGeneral frameworks for optimization of plasticinjection molding process parametersrdquo Simulation ModellingPractice and 4eory vol 41 pp 15ndash27 2014

[33] Y Xu Q Zhang W Zhang and P Zhang ldquoOptimization ofinjection molding process parameters to improve the me-chanical performance of polymer product against impactrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 76 no 9ndash12 pp 2199ndash2208 2015

[34] J Zhao G Cheng S Ruan and Z Li ldquoMulti-objective op-timization design of injection molding process parametersbased on the improved efficient global optimization algorithmand non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithmrdquo 4eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologyvol 78 no 9ndash12 pp 1813ndash1826 2015

[35] MMohanM NM Ansari and R A Shanks ldquoReview on theeffects of process parameters on strength shrinkage andwarpage of injection molding plastic componentrdquo Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 1ndash122017

[36] M H M Hazwan Z Shayfull S Sharif N Zainal andS M Nasir ldquoOptimisation of warpage on plastic injectionmoulding part with MGSS conformal cooling channelsmoulds using response surface methodology (RSM)rdquo inProceedings of the 2017 AIP Conference Birmingham UK July2017

[37] Arburg Allrounder 420 C Golden Edition 2020 httpswwwarburgcomfileadminredaktionMediathekTechnische_DatenARBURG_ALLROUNDER_420C_GOLDEN_EDITION_TD_523677_en_GBpdf

[38] SABIC SABICreg HDPE M80064 High Density Polyethylenefor Injection Moulding 2020 httpwwwb2bpolymerscomTDSSABIC_M80064pdf

[39] G W A Oehlert First Course in Design and Analysis ofExperiments W H Freeman New York NY USA 2000

[40] S M S Mukras H M Omar and F A Al-Mufadi ldquoEx-perimental-based multi-objective optimization of injectionmolding process parametersrdquo Arabian Journal for Science andEngineering vol 44 no 9 pp 7653ndash7665 2019

[41] G H Choi K D Lee and N Chang ldquoOptimization of processparameters of injection molding with neural network appli-cation in a process simulation environmentrdquo CIRP Annalsvol 43 no 1 pp 449ndash452 1994

14 Advances in Polymer Technology

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15

Page 15: Experimental-Based Optimization of Injection Molding

[42] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoComparison of the warpageoptimization in the plastic injection molding using ANOVAneural network model and genetic algorithmrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 171 no 3 pp 437ndash4452006

[43] C Shen L Wang and Q Li ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using combination of artificialneural network and genetic algorithm methodrdquo Journal ofMaterials Processing Technology vol 183 no 2-3 pp 412ndash4182007

[44] F Yin H Mao and L Hua ldquoA hybrid of back propagationneural network and genetic algorithm for optimization ofinjection molding process parametersrdquo Materials amp Designvol 32 no 6 pp 3457ndash3464 2011

[45] M Altan ldquoReducing shrinkage in injection moldings via theTaguchi ANOVA and neural network methodsrdquoMaterials ampDesign vol 31 no 1 pp 599ndash604 2010

[46] C-Y Shen L-X Wang and Q-X Zhang ldquoProcess optimi-zation of injection molding by the combining ANNHGAmethodrdquo Polymer Materials Science and Engineering vol 21no 5 pp 23ndash27 2005

[47] H Shi Y Gao and X Wang ldquoOptimization of injectionmolding process parameters using integrated artificial neuralnetworkmodel and expected improvement functionmethodrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 48 no 9ndash12 pp 955ndash962 2010

[48] J Zhou L-S Turng and A Kramschuster ldquoSingle and multiobjective optimization for injection molding using numericalsimulation with surrogate models and genetic algorithmsrdquoInternational Polymer Processing vol 21 no 5 pp 509ndash5202006

[49] Y Gao and X Wang ldquoAn effective warpage optimizationmethod in injection molding based on the Kriging modelrdquo4e International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nology vol 37 no 9-10 pp 953ndash960 2008

[50] H Kurtaran and T Erzurumlu ldquoEfficient warpage optimi-zation of thin shell plastic parts using response surfacemethodology and genetic algorithmrdquo 4e InternationalJournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology vol 27 no 5-6 pp 468ndash472 2005

[51] B Ozcelik and T Erzurumlu ldquoDetermination of effectingdimensional parameters on warpage of thin shell plastic partsusing integrated response surface method and genetic algo-rithmrdquo International Communications in Heat and MassTransfer vol 32 no 8 pp 1085ndash1094 2005

[52] C-C Chen P-L Su and Y-C Lin ldquoAnalysis andmodeling ofeffective parameters for dimension shrinkage variation ofinjection molded part with thin shell feature using responsesurface methodologyrdquo 4e International Journal of AdvancedManufacturing Technology vol 45 no 11-12 pp 1087ndash10952009

[53] J D Martin and T W Simpson ldquoUse of kriging models toapproximate deterministic computer modelsrdquo AIAA Journalvol 43 no 4 pp 853ndash863 2005

[54] S N Lophaven H B Nielsen and J Soslashndergaard ldquoDACEmdashamatlab kriging toolboxrdquo in IMM Informatics and Mathe-matical Modelling pp 1ndash34 Technical University of Den-mark Lyngby Denmark 2002

[55] MathWorks Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algo-rithms 2020 httpswwwmathworkscomhelpoptimugconstrained-nonlinear-optimization-algorithmshtml

Advances in Polymer Technology 15