The Use of Variable Speed Drives to Retrofit Hydraulic Injection Molding Machines Lawrence Ambs and Michael M. Frerker Industrial Assessment Center Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst ‘Amherst, MA 01003 ABSTRACT Injection Molding is a common method of plastic processing in which thermoplastic materials can be ‘molded into arbitrary complex shapes. Most injection ‘molding machines use complicated hydraulic systems to perform the necessary work of the process, Hydraulic system flow and pressure requirements vary throughout the cycle and in many cases, excess fluid that is not required by the process is throttled back to the reservoir, wasting motor energy and producing additional thermal load on the cooling system. Variable speed drives can be used to allow injection molding machine hydraulic systems to vary the amount of fluid being pumped and thus reduce the amount of fluid that is throttled, reducing the amount of wasted energy. This paper discusses injection molding machine processes and develops a protocol for assessing the efficacy of variable speed drive retrofits for hydraulic injection molding machines BACKGROUND The plastics processing industry is one of the largest U.S. manufacturing sectors, representing more than $150 billion in sales each year (5). Injection molding is one of the most common methods of plastics processing. According to Rosato and Rosato (9) approximately 32% by weight of the plastics processed in the U.S. are injection molded. There are over 7800 plants” operating over 89,000 injection ‘molding machines (IMMs) in the US., representing a connected electrical load of over 4200 MW (5). ‘The basic injection molding process is very similar to the die casting process used for forming ‘metals. The raw material is fed into the machine, usually in the form of small pellets. Its then raised to, a temperature whereby it will flow, or plasticize, by a combination of thermal energy input and mechanical work. The plasticized material is then injected at high pressure into a two part mold. The material is then allowed to cool and solidify. Cooling is often the longest portion of the process cycle. When the part has solidified sufficiently, the mold halves open and the partis ejected, As a result of the fact that the plastic material needs to be heated, forced into the mold at high pressure, and then cooled, the injection molding process is quite energy intensive. This situation is ‘exacerbated by the fact that IMMs currently in use are only 10-25% efficient (9). In other words, a typical IMM consumes 4-10 times more energy than is theoretically required to melt and inject the plastic. This figure doesn’t take into account the energy to physically open and close the mold and some other Recessary components of the cycle, however there is clearly opportunity for efficiency improvements. Most of this wasted energy ends up as a thermal load on the plant chilled water or HVAC systems, further dri up energy use. A study performed by Husky Injecti ‘Molding Systems, and published in Modern Plast (12) shows that IMMs consume nearly 60% of the energy at a typical injection molding plant. Chilled water systems for mold and hydraulic system cooling make up another 9%. As a result of all of the above, IMMs are a good target for energy efficiency improvements. INJECTION MOLDING MACHINES Injection molding machines (IMMs) canbe conveniently described as two distinct units, a clamping unit and a plasticizing or injection unit. The clamping unit is responsible for opening and closing the mold, and maintaining a force on the mold while the material is being injected. The plasticizing unit is responsible for, first melting the material so that it will flow, and then injecting it at high pressure into the ‘mold, Most injection molding machines use energy in the form of pressurized hydraulic fluid to power both the plasticizing and clamping units. Most IMMs use either a hydraulic ram or a hydraulically actuated toggle system for the clamping unit. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of clamping unit based on equipment cost, ease of operation, speed, and maintainability. Toggle units are typically more energy efficient than ram units, however the energy used by the clamping unit is small when compared to the energy used by the injection unit Al of the machines considered in this project have reciprocating screw plasticizer units. This is the most common type of plasticizer in use today. The basic design of the reciprocating screw injection unit is as follows. Inside the barrel is a screw. The screw ccan be turned inside the barrel using a hydraulic ‘motor, and can be moved in and out of the barrel in a reciprocating motion using one or more hydraulicrams, The turning motion of the serew along with energy from the heater bands surrounding the barrel melt the material. As the screw turns it is forced out of the barrel slightly. When the required amount of ‘material is pre-plasticized, the material can be injected into the mold through the reciprocating motion of the screw. The findings of this project will be qualitatively applicable to machines with other types of plasticizer units, if differences in the relative lengths of each portion of the cycle are taken into account. INJECTION MOLDING CYCLE AND HYDRAULIC DEMANDS In this paper, the hydraulic system of the IMM is defined as all pumps, motors, actuators, valves, piping, ftc., used in conjunction with hydraulic fluid 10 provide useful energy to the IMM. The term fpudraulic power pack refers to the system of pumps and motors, along with the pressure control system that provide high pressure hydraulic fluid. The system pressure is determined based on the downstream restrictions in the system, and is usually limited by a relief valve. ‘The hydraulic fluid pressure at the various actuators can be significantly lower than the system pressure, The term hydraulic requirements signifies the hydraulic fluid pressure and flow rate that is needed by the actuators. The hydraulic requirements of the IMM vary throughout the injection molding cycle, Typically parts of the process that involve bulk ‘motion, such as opening and closing the mold, require large volumes of fluid. Parts of the process that involve large forces, such as holding the mold closed the plastic is being injected, require high pressure fluid. The hydraulic requirements often differ from what is supplied by the hydraulic power pack, resulting in wasted energy, The basic injection molding cycle can be described in eight steps: mold close, clamp buildup, injection high, injection low, screw recovery, idle, mold open, and eject. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are qualitative “representations of a typical injection molding cycle. These plots are qualitative representations of a typical injection molding cycle Figures 1 and 2 are plots of the hydraulic fluid flow rate and pressure requirements respectively. The instantaneous hydraulic power is the product of the pressure and flow rates, and is shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, the hydraulic requirements in terms of both pressure and flow rates vary substantially throughout the cycle. When the cycle is started, hydraulic fuid is diverted to the clamping section, and the mold begins to close. The hydraulic requirements are for a large volume of relatively low pressure (200 psi) fluid, When the mold halves meet, the system goes into clamp buildup. During the rest of the cycle the clamping unit will receive up to full hydraulic system pressure (~3000 psi), but very little flow is required, ‘only enough to make up for leakage past seals. ‘The next portion of the eyele is injection high. Daring this portion of the cycle the material is pushed forward by the screw at high speed and high pressure. This is accomplished by forcing the entite screw forward in a reciprocating motion with a hydraulic ram, To achieve the high injetion pressures required (-20,000 psi) with the maximum hydraulic. system Pressure (~3000 psi), the diameter of this hydraulic zam is large. Thus the hydraulic requirements are for high pressure fluid and large flow rates to move the large diameter ram forward at a high velocity Injection high typically places the highest. instantaneous power requirements on the hydraulic system since both high pressure fluid and high flow rates are required. Although the instantaneous hydraulic demands are large, the injection high portion of the cycle is generally relatively shor in duration Injection high causes the bulk movement of the plastic material into the mold. The next portion of the cycle is injection low, also called hold, As the plastic in the mold begins to coo! it wll shrink. Injection low maintains pressure on the material and_ forces additional material into the mold to make up for any shrinkage. During this portion of the cycle a small volume of high pressure hydraulic fluid is required to maintain injection pressure, After the plastic in the gate solidifies the serew recovery portion of the cycle begins. While the part is still cooling in the mold, the serew begins to rotate Preparing the next shot. The screw is driven by @ hydraulic motor. Producing high torque at high speed requires a high hydraulic fuid pressure and flow rate atthe motor, and as a result this portion of the eycle typically places the second largest instantaneous power requirement on the hydraulic system. However, the duration of this portion of the eycle is considerably longer than the injection high portion. If the new shot is completely prepared, but the part in the mold still requires more cooling time, there will be an idle period in the cycle. The length of this portion of the cycle is related to shot size, material type, part design, a5 well as the capacity of the machine on which the part is being molded. During this portion of the cycle, hydraulic power requirements are ata minimum, After the part is completely cooled, the mold is ‘opened. This portion of the eyele is analogous to mold closing, and requires a high volume of low pressure fluid. Once the mold is opened, or in some cases as the mold is opening, eject and core movement functions may take placeINJECTION MOLDING MACHINE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS ‘AS can be seen in the description above, the hydraulic requirements of the IMM vary substantially throughout the cycle both in terms of required pressure and flow rates. This makes it difficult to design an energy efficient hydraulic power pack for the injection molding process. ‘The most simple hydraulic system uses a constant speed motor, driving a constant displacement pump, and with a simple mechanical relief valve. This will be referred to as a constant flow rate, constant pressure hydraulic power pack since it will output fluid at a constant flow rate and at a relatively constant pressure regardless of the cycle requirements. Since instantaneous power is the product of pressure and flow rate, @ constant pressure, constant flow rate system will have @ constant power draw, even if the cycle hydraulic requirements vary. The power pack must be designed for the maximum pressure and flow requirements of the cycle if the IMM is to function properly. At other points in the cycle there will be ‘waste in one of two forms. Bither excess fluid will be bypassed over the relief valve, or high pressure fluid will be throttled to a lower pressure before it reaches the actuators. As energy costs have increased, a number of different methods have been used to address IMM inefficiencies. Some of the efficiency improvements that are in use include the use of: — hydraulic accumulators, relief valves that allow system pressure to modulate to the eycle requirements, multiple staged pumps that allow large displacement pumps to be diverted at low pressure when not required, variable isplacement pumps, and variable speed drives. (VSDs). Often a single machine will incorporate more than one of these improvements, ‘The use of variable speed drives on new IMMs is still somewhat rare. However, itis quite common for new IMMSs to have variable displacement pumps and pressure modulation. These new IMMs show a significant efficiency improvement over IMs just a few years older that use constant volume hydraulic power packs with pressure modulation. Even greater savings is shown when the new IMMs are compared to even older IMMs with constant volume, constant pressure hydraulic power packs. According to the Electric Power Research Institute (2), a 1993 vintage IMM with staged variable displacement pumps uses 20% less energy than an [MM manufactured in the early 1980's, and up to 60% less energy than an IMM built before 1975. Perhaps the biggest advantage of VSDs, over some of these other solutions, is that they can be easily retrofit on existing machines with constant speed AC luction motors. The VSDs allow old machines to rease their efficiency to the point of matching or even exceeding the efficiency of new machines. VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES AS A RETROFIT The VSD is primarily suited for controlling the volume output of the pump. Using the VSD, the bypass of fluid over the relief valve can be minimized since the volume output of the pump can closely follow the requirements of the cycle. The VSD is programmed s0 that for each portion of the cycle, only the required flow is pumped, and therefore to maximize savings, the VSD controls must be optimized for each mold individually. ‘The VSD retrofit requires only rerouting the power supply of the hydraulic pump motor(s) through the'VSD and setting up the VSD control system, either through the IMM’s central controller or through an independent controller. Installation can usually be completed in less than one shift. By comparison, retrofiting an IMM with a variable displacement ump would require substantial hydraulic system redesign, and could cost as much as 60% of the price of anew machine ‘The goal of the VSD control system is to allow the VSD to set the motor speed depending. on what portion of the cycle is currently occurring. For each portion of the cycle there will be a motor speed set Point. The motor speed set points will potentially vary different materials and with different molds. After the VSD is installed, any flow restriction valves in the hydraulic system need to be opened s0 that savings are maximized, and the system needs to be optimized, A common method of motor speed set point optimization is to simply tum down the motor speed until the cycle time starts to increase, and then tum it back up slightly. While this method makes intuitive sense, it is not clear whether itis the optimal ‘way to set up these systems. SAVINGS ‘The decision to install VSDs on IMMs, like most energy conservation decisions, is based primarily on economic factors. Specifically, will the savings Provided by the technology provide a sufficient return fon the investment required for the installation, Typically the cost of implementation can be easily determined from VSD distributors. Determining the savings in energy is much more difficult. The affinity laws that are used to predict VSD savings for centrifugal pump or fan applications are not sufficient for the more complicated IMM hydraulic pump applications, and will over estimate savings. ‘There are some basic rules of thumb concerning SDs and IMMS that are typically applied. Most VSDinstallers expect energy savings of 20-50% of pre- retrofit motor energy use for machines with constant lacement pumps. Machines with variable displacement pumps will have lower savings, and only @ few VSD distributors consider machines with variable displacement pumps appropriate for VSD retrofits. However, it is generally felt that potential energy savings is more strongly dependent on cycle time breakdown, especially percentage idle time in the cycle, than on machine parameters or other process parameters PREVIOUS IMM ENERGY USE STUDIES ‘A number of previous studies have examined the energy use of IMMs, and the savings achieved through VSD retrofits. Farrell, Beumont, and Koch, G) present an experimental’ energy audit of an injection molding process. They treat the process itself asa black box, but study the energy inputs and energy losses ofthe process. Michaeli and Robers (6) attempt comparison of hydraulic IMMs with all-electric IMMs in terms of process repeatability and energy efficiency. They also examine where losses occur within the IMM_ hydraulic system through local metering of hydraulic fluid, Goodman (5) and ‘Thomburg (11) both report on a VSD retrofit to a specific 450 ton IMM. Savings are measured for several different processes on this machine. Poole and Lawrence (7) present the results of seven VSD installations on large machines at one plant. Several other studies have attempted to predict the savings that VSDs can achieve through an analysis of existing installations. Each of these studies used savings data ffom existing installations anda regression analysis with various machine and process Parameters. Remley (8) presents a simple model that attempts to create a savings model for a range of machines using data from, eight VSD installations at four sites. Englander and Remley (1) expand upon the previous study with a more complicated model and more data points, Silver (10) continued where the Previous study Ieft off, examining five new installations, bringing the total to seventeen installations. Each of the models developed in these studies are troubled by the small size of the data set used. While all of the models do a relatively good job of fitting their own data set, they are considerably Poorer at predicting savings on other installations. iis also clear that some of the parameters in these models do not have a theoretical basis, Thus it is not clear Whether these represent important parameters that effect savings, or simply allow the curve to fit this particular dataset. ANALYSIS OF VSD INSTALLATIONS General Approach ‘The data used in this analysis came from essentially four types of sources: published reports and. other metering data from utilities; metering data from consulting firms that work with utilities and their customers; manufacturers who have installed VSDs on their IMMs; and VSD distributors. The original study (4) upon which this paper is based considered 49 IMM VSD retrofits. While quantitative information about energy use is useful, and ultimately necessary to determine itis not sufficient to develop a model of the process. The fundamental difficulty with the sources of quantitative data, is that they reported insufficient information about process and machine parameters to develop a savings model. Other sources were able to supply qualitative data regarding the process and ‘machine parameters, but not energy use ‘measurements. The net result of this situation is that the data that was collected is not sufficient to produce a comprehensive mathematical model. However, the available quantitative data helps to estimate the range of possible values for both pre-retrofit energy use and percent savings. The qualitative data then allows some general statements to be made about what types of processes will be in the upper portion of that range of savings, and what processes will be in the lower Portion. Based on this information, some guidelines regarding the process specific efficacy of VSDs on IMMS have been developed Quantitative Results ‘The quantitative data collected includes the average initial motor power draw in kW and the average final motor power draw in kW. Based on this information, the percent savings due to the VSD retrofit is calculated. Note that all values for energy use are for the IMM motors only. No before and after retrofit electricity metering data for the entire IMM, including heater bands, was available. Potentially, ‘modifications to the hydraulic system could effect the energy use of the heater bands, ‘The range of values in motor load and percent savings is remarkable, as is the lack of correlation between these values and any other reported information. Pre-retrofit motor load ranged from @ high of 132% to a low of 32%, although for most applications (42 out of 49) the range was 32-80% Post-retrofit motor load ranged from a high of 122% to a low of 13%, although for most applications (38 ut of 49), it fell within a range of 20-50%. Percent savings ranged from a low of 4% to a high of 62%,although for most applications (38 out of 49), it fell ‘within a range of 20-50%, There was no strong correlation between percent savings and machine size in tons, number or size of motors, before or after load on the motor, or the material being molded. For the applications for which information about idle time existed, there was a ‘correlation between idle time and percent savings, In order to examine the range of simple payback periods some assumptions are made. An equation developed by Silver (10), is used to estimate the cost of implementation. It is assumed that all of the machines are in three shift production for 6000 hhours/year. Installation of a VSD on an IMM will provide a savings in both electrical energy and ‘demand charges. The reason is that the typical cycle time of an IMM is much shorter than the typical demand averaging period of 15 minutes. Thus an average electricity rate, including a demand contribution, of $0.10/kWh is assumed. Based on these assumptions the average simple payback period for the applications reported is 2.8 years. The shortest payback is 1.0 year, and the longest is 9.7 years. Most of the simple payback periods are in a range of 1-4 vyears Qualitative Results ‘The qualitative information was collected at a single manufacturing site that has multiple installations of VSDs on IMMs. In an effort to determine the relative affects of machine and process parameters, information was collected about specific ‘molds on several machines, as well as about specific machines with several different molds. For each process the machine parameters of machine manufacturer, maximum clamping force in tons, date of manufacture, clamp type, and number and size of motors is reported. In” addition the process characteristics of material type, shot size, injection pressure and back pressure are reported. The key to this analysis however, is the fact that the VSD speed setting for each portion of the cycle is also available. Since motor power varies atleast linearly with the motor speed, the motor speed settings can be used to assess the relative savings during each portion of the cycle. The settings for different processes can then be compared, While this information allows conclusions Table 1. VSD Settings by Portion of Cycle. about the relative savings in a certain portion of the cycle, it does not give explicit information about the relative savings over the entire cycle. This is a result of the fact that the system pressure at each point in the cycle is unknown, For the VSDs investigated at the manufacturer's site, the average motor speed set points for each portion of the cycle are shown in Table 1. The motor speed is given as a percentage of full speed. The mean, high, and low motor speed settings are reported for each portion of the cycle. VSD optimization was previously performed by plant personnel. The basic optimization methodology was to turn down the motor speed for each portion of the cycle as much as possible without increasing cycle time. A lower limit of 42% of. rated speed was used to insure good motor cooling and hydraulic system performance. Several newer IMMs have VSDs that are integrated the system controller. For these machines, optimization was done by the controller, and motor speeds lower than 42% of rated speed were recorded. ‘The significant range in values during each portion of the cycle was problematic in terms of ‘making generalizations, however, the average results are as expected. The portions of the cycle during which hydraulic fluid flow requirements are lowest, idle and injection low, show the greatest reduction in ‘motor speed. Parts of the process that require high hydraulic fluid flow rates show less reduction in motor speed. All other things being equal, machines with two motors tend to have more potential for savings than ‘machines with one motor. The reason is that when one motor is used, relatively high motor speed set points are required during five portions of the cycle, mold ‘open and close, injection high, screw recovery and core pull. The two motor machines in this study, were all designed so that each motor has separate duties. One motor serves the injection unit, and requires a high motor speed setting during injection high and serew recovery but is also used during mold open and close. The other motor serves the clamping unit, and only needs high speeds during mold open, mold close, and core pull. At all other times the clamping unit ‘motor is essentially idle, and can be tumed down. The values for injection high and screw recovery are therefore somewhat artificially low in Table 1, Tajection | Tnjeation Screw Wold _ Close Mold | High Low Revovery | tale | Open | Core Pull Average 76 6 5) 7 2 35 7 Maximum 36 100) 8 “Tor 38 100) 100 Minimum 30 2 35 a 25 a a2because they include settings for the second motors which are essentially idle during these two portions of the cycle When the second motor speed settings are removed from the average, the injection high average speed setting is 74% of rated motor speed, and the screw recovery average speed setting is 76% of rated ‘motor speed ‘An attempt was made to correlate motor speed settings during injection high and screw recovery with the type of material being molded. The large range in values, and the low number of data points for each ‘material prevent any trend from being discemed during screw recovery. The correlation between motor speed setting and ciamp type was also weak. This qualitative analysis of motor speed settings is useful, however some difficulties should be pointed out. AS with other studies presented, a relatively low number of VSD applications were investigated. Along with large variations in motor settings between similar applications makes it difficult to make definitive statements, In addition, the findings are dependent on the method and skill with which the VSD was optimized, ‘A PROTOCOL FOR ASSESSING THE EFFICACY OF A VSD RETROFIT It was not possible to use the findings of this study to develop a simple mathematical model for use in predicting savings. However, it is possible to develop a protocol that can be used to determine which injection molding processes should be considered for further study. The protocol which follows is based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses of this study along with the information presented in the previous sections. There are three steps to the protocol, collection of data, determination of pre-retrofit motor energy use, and determination of the percentage reduction in motor energy use that the ‘VSD can provide. Data Collection In general, the more information that can be collected about both the process and the IMM, the better. At a minimum, three pieces of information are required to make a prediction of VSD savings, the number and size of hydraulic pump electric motors, the cycle time breakdown of the process, and whether ‘or not variable displacement hydraulic pumps are used. Table 2 outlines these and some additional machine and process information that is useful, in order of importance, and how it can be collected. Most of the information outlined above can be easily collected during a quick audit of an injection molding process. Determining whether an IMM uses variable ot fixed displacement pumps by simply examining the pumps can be difficult. Pump information is more easily collected from the IMM ‘manuals or prints, or from the IMM manufacturer. If it is not possible to determine the pump type in any ‘manner, assume that IMMs manufactured before 1985 use fixed displacement pumps, Perhaps the most important piece of information used to determine VSD savings, is the breakdown of the total cycle time into the seven portions of the cyele Previously described. It is possible to determine the eycle breakdown for almost all injection molding processes though visual observation with the use of a stopwatch, and no investigation of an injection ‘molding process is complete without this information Table 2, Information to Collect During an Audit of an Injection Molding Process. Information | Method of Collection Cycle Time Breakdown | Collect using a stopwatch, Number and Size (hp) of Hydraulic Pump Motors | Collect from motor nameplate(s), or IMM hydraulic system prints Number and Type of Hydraulic Pumps | Collet from IMM hydraulic system prints/manvals Type of Hydraulic System Pressure Control | Collect from IMM hydraulic system manuals. i Type (Togele or Ram) | Collect by direct observation of IMM, Clamping Force Tons | Collect from IMM nameplate or manuals Date of IMM Manufacture | Collet from IMM nameplate or manuals. Paste Material | Collect by observation or from mold setup sheets Injection Pressure [ Collect from mold setup sheets, or during IMM eyele IMM Shot Capacity | Collect from IMM namepiate or manual. ‘Shot Size | Weight of the par, oF from mold setup sheet.Determination of Pre-Retrofit Motor Energy Use Using just the above information it will be possible to make a rough prediction of the energy savings that a VSD can provide. However, the prediction will be improved upon if it is possible to acquire measurements of the pre-retrofit hydraulic pump motor energy use, either on an average or instantaneous basis. If tis not possible to measure the existing motor load in any way, it will be necessary to ‘make an estimate of motor load, however this will be ‘considerably less accurate than taking measurements ‘As desctibed above, the motor electrical power draw is typically between 30-80% of rated motor power. ‘The estimation scheme proposed is to develop a ‘motor factor percentage, MFP, based on machine and Process parameters. This MFP when multiplied by the motor rated power in kW will provide an estimate of the pre-retrofit average motor power draw in kW. As a rule of thumb, start with an estimate of MFP of 55% of rated motor power. If the IMM is built before 1980, add 10%. If itis built after 1985, deduct 10%. If the IMM uses multiple motors deduct 10%. If the IMM uses variable displacement pumps deduct 20%. Next add the times for the idle and injection low portions of the cycle, and divide by the total cycle {ime to get a low flow rate factor, LFF, forthe process. Then add or deduct from the MFP based on the following equation: MFP =MFPgyprorat - 0.5 x (LFF - 0.40), ‘A maximum MEP of 80%, and a minimum of 30% should be used for IMMs with constant displacement pumps. Slightly lower values may be likely for IMMs with variable displacement pumps, although no machines with variable displacement pumps were ‘examined to confirm this thought. Table 3 is a summary of four methods that can be used to determine the pre-retrofit hydraulic pump ‘motor(s) energy use. They are presented in a decreasing order of accuracy/usefulness. Determination of VSD Energy Savings In most cases an average pre-retrofit motor power (kW) will be determined. The next step is estimating the percent savings due to the VSD installation, All of the IMMSs investigated in this project used constant displacement hydraulic pumps. If an IMM uses variable displacement pumps, it should be assumed that the savings due to a VSD installation will be less than 20% of pre-retrofit motor energy use, unless other operating conditions are extreme, ‘The VSD industry rule of thumb of 20-50% savings over pre-retrofit motor energy use for IMMs with constant displacement pumps, is supported by the quantitative results reported, The qualitative results show that the motor speed can be lowered the most e =o) B i “Figure 3. Required Hydraulic Energy (Pressuce x Flow Rate) Through One CycleBIBLIOGRAPHY 1.) Englander, Scott L., and Remley, Carl H. (1994) “Measured performance of variable speed Arives on injection molding machinery,” Proceedings: ACEEE 1994 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C., pp. 2.87-2.94. 2.) EPRI. (1993) Partnership for Industrial ‘Competitiveness, Plastics Fabrication, Industry ‘Manual. Electric Power Research Institue, Palo Alto, California 3.) Farrell, RE,, Beumnont, 1P., and Koch, P.B. (1991) “Performing an energy audit on an injection molding process.” ANTEC Conference Proceedings, Montreal, Society of Plastics Engineers, Brookfield, Connecticut, pp. 504-507. 4.) Fretker, Michael M., (1996) “The Use of Variable Speed Drives as a Retrofit for Injection Molding Machine Hydraulic Systems.” Masters Project, Department of ‘Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 5.) Goodman, Wendell G. (1992) Upgrading Injection Molding Machines for Improved Efficiency (CMF 92-6). Electric Power Research Institute, Center for Materials Fabrication, Columbus, Ohio. 6.) Michaeli, W., and Robers, Th. (1993) “Energy consumption and reproducibility of all-electric injection molding machines compared with hydraulic machines.” ANTEC Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, Society of Plastics Engineers, Brookfield, Connecticut, pp. 2809- 2817 10 7.) Poole, J, and Lawrence, R. (1995) Evaluation of ‘Adjustable Speed Drive Systems for Injection ‘Mold Machines (EPRI-TR-105149). Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Califor 8.) Remley, Carl H. (1993) “Measured performance of variable speed drives on injection molding hydraulic pumps.” Energy Management Consulting and Equipment, Inc., North Attleboro, Massachusets 9.) Rosato, Donald V., and Rosato, Dominick V. (1995) Injection Molding Handbook, 2nd Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. 10, Silver, Scott. (1994) “PG&E Measure Documentation-ASDs for Injection Molding. Savage Engineering, Inc, Bloomfield, Connecticut. 11.) Thomburg, TC. (1993) “The rejuvenation of an ‘old injection molding workhorse to an energy efficient thoroughbred.” ANTEC Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, Society of Plastics Engineers, Brookfield, Connecticut, pp. 2818- 2824, 12,) Wilder, Robert V. (1992) “Want to cut energy costs? Start with the press.” Modern Plastic, 69 (3), April 1992, pp. 80-81.