G. E.

JOHNSON1
Application of Optimization Techniques to the
Assoc. Mem. ASME
Proluction of Plastic Pellets
IV!. A. TOWNSEND
Mem. ASME In this paper the manufacture of pellets from extruded plastic strands is treated as a
constrained nonlinear programming problem. Complete model development is given.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Materials Science, The advantages and disadvantages of various optimization strategies and algorithms
Vanderbilt University, are discussed; a solution is also obtained by Johnson's Method of Optimum Design
Nashville, Tenn. 37235 (MOD). Substantial increases in production rates are indicated with attendant favor-
able changes in the energy consumed in the production of a unit mass of product.

Introduction • the pelletizing machine does not stall,

• pellet dimensions are within a certain range as dictated by
In this paper the problem of maximizing the production of material handling equipment or end use,
pellets from extruded plastic strands is mathematically modeled. • operating speed falls within a certain range as specified by
The resulting nonlinear programming problem (equations (4-9))
the pelletizing machine manufacturer, and
proved difficult to solve using commercially available optimi-
• number of strands does not exceed the maximum number that
zation algorithms. Several schemes were unsuccessful [1, 2, 3]
can be handled effectively by an operator or by the inlet
while others proved to be satisfactory for the numerical ex-
opening to the machine.
amples of the text [4, 5]. The success or failure of any algorithm
may be inherent or due to numerical values of the model pa- (a) Mechanics of the Cutting Process. The production rate is
rameters (since these affect the scaling of the design space); given by the product of the mass of a pellet, the number of
regardless, the solution becomes tedious and expensive if the pellets produced as a blade crosses the bed knife, and the rate
constraint defined by equation (9) is properly treated as an at which blades cross the bed knife, viz.
integer constraint. Other problems associated with standard
nonlinear programming techniques are discussed in the section V = {pAl) (N) (BO), (1)
entitled Method of Solution in the following. time
Because it is desirable to identify a general solution strategy
in its simplest form, an alternate approach to the optimization
is developed based on a method proposed by R. C. Johnson B Blades equally spaced on rotor
[6-11] (subsequently referred to as MOD). The result is a Path followed by blade tips
finite procedure to identify the global optimum for any specific

Problem Formulation
Pellets of materials such as polyester, polyethylene, poly-
propylene, etc. are widely used as the input (raw material) t —i
for the manufacture of molded plastic parts and man-made
fibers. As indicated in Fig. 1, typically extruded strands are
pulled into the pelletizing machine by feed rolls. Rotating
knives cut the strands into pellets (which are easily handled
in bulk) as the strands cross a bed knife.
The general problem is to select pellet dimensions, number
of strands, and operating speed to maximize the production
rate subject to the requirements (constraints) that:
l
N Strands, each
Currently, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, of area A
Charlottesville, Va. 22901.
Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of the Design Engineer-
ing Division at the Winter Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Calif., December Rotor
10-15, 1978 of T H E AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENQINEEHS. Manu- Fig. 1 Extruded plastic strands are advanced by feed rolls to bed
script received at ASME headquarters May 30, 1978. Paper No. 78-WA/DE-3. knife where rotor blades cut them into pellets

650 / Vol. 101, OCTOBER 1979 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1979 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/27975/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/

 As the number of strands increases, the probability of drop-
ping a strand increases, which generally results in an "upset"
involving downtime, clearing and subsequent restart. Such an
eventuality can be treated in a number of ways. In the present
study it is assumed that operation with the maximum number
of strands costs one percent of the production rate and that the
cost (in terms of percentage of production rate) decreases lin-
early as the number of strands decreases. The adjusted pro-
duction rate is then given by
V = V ( l ~ ^ \ ^ (2)
\ Nmoi / ' time
To determine a relation between the design variables and
the power required to perform the cutting operation, consider
a rotor equipped with B blades parallel to the bed knife cutting
N strands, each of cross sectional area A and thickness in the
direction of blade travel t at a rotor speed 0, as illustrated in
Fig. 1. As a blade cuts through the strands, the cutting force
increases from zero to a maximum value of approximately NAT
and then decreases to zero again when the blade has passed
completely through the material. The force as a function of
displacement through the strands will be generally as shown
in Fig. 2. The energy drawn from the rotor is the area under
the force versus displacement curve in Fig. 2 and is approxi-
mately equal to NAtr/2. This energy drain occurs each time a
blade cuts through the strands—once every 1/BU minutes—
and must be returned to the rotor by the drive before the next
blade makes contact with the strands. The rotor acts as a
flywheel, storing energy when no force is applied. The rate
at which energy must be supplied (power) to the rotor is
NAT t BQ,
(3)
Analysis of the cutting operation for the case of a helical
milling type rotor also leads to equation (3) if helix angles of
less than 6 deg are assumed [12], In present machines, the
helix angle is around 3 deg.
DISPLACEMENT
Fig. 2 Cutting force cycles between 0 and NAT each time a blade
passes through the strands
^Nomenclature-
A —cross sectional area of a strand
B =number of blades on rotor
d =diameter of cylindrical pellet, m
/(0) =available power as a function of rotor speed for drive, kw
I =
pellet length, m
N =
number of strands
N =
value of N for which points 1 and 2 coincide (referring
to Fig. 3(a))
NL = first integer less than N
No = first integer greater than N
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/27975/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/
A simple calculation will show that the power required to
advance the strands into the pelletizing machine is negligible
compared to the cutting power requirement. This is corrob-
orated by design practice: independent feed power drives are
on the order of .3 KW, whereas the powers involved in equation
(3) are typically on the order of 10 to 40 KW. Also an operator
can easily pull the strands from the die to the pelletizer at
startup, but he cannot chop the full width of strands.
(to) Design Variables and Constraints. Considering the most
common case of circular cross-section strands of diameter d,
the design variables are d, I, fi, and N. These are to be selected
such that the adjusted production rate is maximized. Accord-
ingly, the mathematical statement of the problem is
maximize V = ( 1 - '—— ) 15ir pBd*lQN kg/hr (4)
as a function of d, I, Q and N
subject to
P = 6.6 X 10-« Nd^rBQ, < /(0) kw (5)
"•mm _<i d _<i "•max
** dma* (6)
< l <I (7)
max
< Q < Q,max (8)
N < JVraM (9)
In equation (5) and as used later, it is assumed that the power
available from the drive /(0) is a concave or linear monoton-
ically increasing (or constant) function of rotor speed. This
assumption is valid for most practical applications.
Method of Solution
The problem thus formulated has a nonlinear objective func-
tion to be maximized subject to one nonlinear and seven linear
inequality constraints. General-purpose algorithms for the so-
lution of such problems have been the subject of many investi-
gations and there are several optimization codes available. An
advantage of the algorithmic approach is that a given optimiz-
ation code addresses all problems in the same, presumably
rational, way in making progress toward an optimum; if it fails
to make progress, usually some relevant diagnostic is given.
This general applicability makes the algorithmic approach at-
tractive, especially for digital computer solution.
Nevertheless, there can be disadvantages to the algorithmic
approach—particularly when naively applying a package al-
gorithm. To varying degrees these disadvantages may appear
as follows:
(a) There is no assurance that the search will terminate at
the global optimum: different "optima" will likely be reported
from different starting points for a typical problem, and there
may be little clue as to where other, possibly better optima
P power required to cut strands
t thickness of strand in direction of blade travel
V production rate, Kg/hr
V adjusted production rate, Kg/hr
0 rotor speed, rpm
p density of plastic, Kg/m 3
shear strength of plastic for cutting state and temper-
ature, Pa
mm lower bound
max upper bound
OCTOBER 1979, Vol. 101 / 651
 may lie. Obviously, we should always like to find the global
optimum, along with some "guarantee."
(b) Insight into the nature of the design space and the
interaction of the constraints must be largely intuitive on the
part of the user, and trial and error may be required if an im-
provement in the objective function is sought through relax-
ation of the constraint set. The use of penalty functions may
further affect this insight, robustness of algorithm behavior
and reliability of results.
(c) Following on (o) and (6) and possibly more seriously,
scaling of variables and constraints m a y greatly alter the effec-
tiveness of different algorithms and the reliability of results.
In many cases, one seeks relatively small changes in design
variables from conventional practices which show desirable im-
provements in the objective function. Poor scaling or poor
choice of step size, convergence criteria, penalty parameters,
univariate search [13], etc. can greatly affect the success of
algorithmic approaches.
(d) The iterative calculations involved do not lend them-
selves well to hand calculation should digital computer usage
be "inconvenient."
(e) Finally, for problems with few variables, the time in-
volved in wading through and debugging the aforementioned
considerations may be poorly spent compared with other ap-
proaches. Many practical problems have relatively few vari-
ables and straightforward constraints such as this one, and
accordingly other approaches may be more suitable, reliable
and enlightening.
Johnson's Method of Optimum Design [7] (MOD) is such
an approach. In this method the solution strategy is posed only
after qualitative investigation of the objective function and
constraint set. The problem is reduced to the lowest possible
dimensionality and a finite procedure is developed to find the
global optimum for any specific case.
MOD is often simple to apply, particularly when the problem
has few variables or the constraint set can be represented by
simple functional relations. However these are not require-
ments. M O D is especially attractive when design variables
are subject to discrete value constraints (typical of standard
stock sizes, integer values, material properties, etc.). A dis-
advantage of M O D is t h a t a different code is necessary for each
problem. Finally, the authors have found t h a t the M O D phi-
losophy can be applied to simplify many complex problems
making algorithmic solutions more tractable when they are
necessary.
The problem as formulated in equations (4-9) can be effec-
tively treated by this technique. To some extent explanation
of the technique is implicit in the solution to the problem.
As a further stimulus and as mentioned in the Introduc-
tion, the problem of equations (4-9) was not solved using
algorithms [1, 2, 3]. Generally termination or no progress
were indicated at distinctly non-optimal points; this may be
attributable to any of a, b or c above. Algorithms [4, 5] solved
the problem [4] rather slowly and to a slightly suboptimal
point due to the penalty functions.
General Solution by MOD. With reference to equations (4-9)
the variable I does not appear in the functional inequality con-
straint (5) and hence its optimal value may be determined by
consideration of the objective function (4) and the trivial in-
equality (7). Clearly Zmax should be chosen as the best value
for pellet length regardless of what values the other variables
take on.
As a practical matter the number of strands will be an in-
teger value between 1 and Nmal. Such variables are often con-
veniently treated as parameters of the solution. Then, optimal
values for other variables (here d and 0 ) and the corresponding
optimal value for the objective function are found for each
integer N = 1, 2, 3, . . ., Nmal. Intuitively, a large value of
652 / Vol. 101, O C T O B E R 1979
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/27975/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/
N would be anticipated. The value for N (and corresponding
values for d and 0 ) which results in the best value for the ob-
jective function specifies the optimal point in the feasible design
space with I = lmaK (unchanged.)
Accordingly, the solution proceeds as follows. Equation (5)
is solved for d and the result is substituted into equation (4)
giving
/ MN_\
_ OljV \ P2/3 1™.
V = 1.34 X 105 | 1
\ ~ Nmm)
with d defined by
d = 53.3
NTBQ
(11)
The feasible design space can now be identified and the vari-
ation of the objective function within the design space can be
determined. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The constraint set
is projected upon a plane or planes defined by suitable aux-
iliary variables and the variations of the objective function
with respect to these variables are studied.
In the present case with reference to Fig. 3(a), the general
constraint set is projected on to the P-Q plane where /(SJ) is a
function of the type defined below equation (9). The actual
feasible design space depends upon the numerical values for
model parameters; however, it is clear from Figs. 3(6) and 3(c)
t h a t the production rate increases as P and il increase.
There are three cases of practical interest.
(1) If the constraint set is as shown in Fig. 3(a), the opti-
mum occurs at point 2 (the intersection of A = fimax and P
(2) If point C were above point 2, then the optimum would
occur at point 1 (the intersection of d = d m i n and P = / ( 0 ) .
(3) If point 3 were below point 2, then the optimum would
occur at point 3 (the intersection of d = d mol and Q = Slm>1).
A fourth possibility occurs if point A is above point B, in which
case there is no feasible design space.
A procedure to sort these points and identify the optimum
for any numerical example is given in the flow chart of Fig. 4
which defines an efficient digital computer code program to
solve specific cases. I t should also be noted t h a t if N were fixed
(as would likely be the case for an existing installation), the
optimal values for d, I, and 0 are obtained by a single pas3
eq ( 1 0 )
with il constant
eq (10) with
P constant
Fig. 3 Projection of constraint set and variations of objective func-
tion: (a) typical constraint set projected onto PS plane; (b) varia-
tion of production rate with P; (c) variation of production rate with Si
Transactions of the ASME
 C Read T , p, d m - j n , d m a x . N m a x , ^ n , a x . ^ n i i r B
' f(%ax)> f
' t y n i n ) • *uiax
D
r
5, = '-max
VSAVE = 0
N= 0

IF
I d = d
N - Nmax J^ H N = N+l a =
min
fyirin
~i r P=f(%in)
No
Feasible
Design
Space
6
T
« Q l f 6.6xlQ- N d^ ax i B i k r f("max

I >0 • ' ?u

n
- ^nax

d by eq (11]
d
= d min
n by solution of eq (11)
with P = f(n) and d = dm\n
P = f(n)

I
j.._____-p-_ -^^
£0
I
<T"if^vsAVE_^>
> 0

VSAVE = V
dSAVE =d
J2SAVE =a
PSAVE = P
NSAVE = N

Fig. 4 MOD flow chart to identify the global optimum for numerical
cases. This procedure is best used if N is fixed or if a comparison of
V* for various N is desired. Detailed information about the feasible
design space is obtainable through intermediate output.

Table 1 Material properties

material shear strength density
A (similar to 4.83 X 107 Pa 1.3 X 103 Kg/m3
polyester)
B (similar to 6.21 X 10 7 Pa 1.3 X 10 3 Kg/m3
glass f i l l e d
polyester)
C (similar to 2.76 X 107 Pa 1 X 10 3 Kg/m3
polypropylene)

Table 2 Optimal solutions

, design point
kg/hr N* d xl03,oi n*,rpm £*X10 3 ,H P ,kw (ref. Pig. 3a)

6720 120 3.00 400.0 3.56 29.8

NUMBER OF STRANDS, II
5622 2.79 397.4 3.56 29.8
Fig. S Maximum (optional) production rate as a function of the nun
7270 3.56 4O0.0 3.56 28.4 ber of strands

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 1979, Vol. 101 / 653

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/27975/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/

 ^ Read T , p, d m j n , d m a x , i^^, N m a x , ^ , ) a x , »mi n , B, f(flm a x)» f ( n miri) J

— — ^ I If f ^A^min)
" IV
6.6x10-6 d3.n T B fr,1n
>

No
I < 0

design f^in)
<N<N
S
££e 6.6x10-6 d3. n x B fl^ max

raJlim

N = f( min)
max Integer "
6.6x10-6 d^.n T B f^ 1 n

I
<0
If ^(^itiax)
6.6x10-6 d 3 . n T B {^|BX
<
I > 0

< If 53.3 [1(fyiax)

5
'max ^ " m a ) <

n =
tynax
P • f("max)
3/3 -d.

>il d = d,max
n -
tynax
N • Nmax
P by (5)
V by eq (4)
N = N max
d by (11)
V by eq (4)

Fig. 6(a)

O-t N by eq (5) N
n
=
=
NL
^max
P = fttVnax)
d by eq (5)
Vj_ by eq (4)

N = NG
d = d
min
« by eq (5)
P = f(n)
VG by eq (4)

i v - VG 7POINT 1) r f ~^<^iFv G ^v L ^ ^

ST0P»» V = VL (POINT 2)
I < 0

Fig. 6(b)
Fig. 6 Simplified optimization procedure requiring the evaluation of
at most seven algebraic expressions and three comparisons

654 / V o l . 191, O C T O B E R 1979 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/27975/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/

 through the flow chart. With N not fixed, it would still be
possible (though tedious) to perform the calculations by hand by
incrementing N by some integer I > 1 to bracket the optimum.
Actually this is not necessary, as is shown in the next section.
At this point it is worthwhile to remark that the selection of
P and 0 as the variables to define the plane of projection is not
arbitrary. The other choices are d and U or d and P . The present
choice allows solution with only minimal knowledge of f(£l).
As long as /(fi) satisfies the requirements given below equation
(9), the constraint set will define a convex region; this does
not occur with either of the other two combinations. I t is
simple to show that equation (10) is concave in the feasible
region (the Hessian is negative semi-definite). Hence any local
maximum found is the global maximum. If a feasible design
space exists, then a local maximum must occur at one of the
three points defined above.
Numerical Examples and Discussion
A typical example is a pelletizing machine with a rated 40 hp
(29.8 K W ) drive, 72 blade rotor, speed range of 125 rpm to
400 rpm, and inlet opening to accommodate up to 120 strands.
The acceptable range for both pellet diameter and length is
2.79 mm to 3.56 mm. Some representative values for material
properties are presented in Table 1. Typical values for the
design variables prior to optimization are N = 100, d = 3 mm,
0 = 325 rpm, and I — 3 mm. The production rate for materials
A and B is 3840 K g / h r and the production rate for material
C is 2950 K g / h r .
Values of the pellet and operating parameters that maximize
production rate for the three materials are given in Table 2
using M O D . The right-most column identifies the type of
design point in Fig. 3(a) per the previous discussion. By com-
parison, optimization can result in a 75 percent increase in
production rate and a 15 percent decrease in the energy con-
sumed to produce a unit mass of product for material A. For
material B the production rate is increased by 47 percent, and
the energy consumed to produce a unit mass of product is de-
creased by 21 percent. For material C the production rate is
increased by 146 percent, while the energy consumed per unit
mass of product remains virtually unchanged. It is easily shown
that energy consumption is directly proportional to pellet di-
ameter and inversely proportional to pellet length [12]. Thus
the change in this ratio from its original value of unity is re-
sponsible for the energy savings reported in the foregoing.
Note that several of the optimal values are very close to,
but not exactly at their limiting values due to the integer con-
straint. In this design technique, this is not attributed to a
penalty function, as it might be using an algorithmic approach.
Fig. 5 shows the general relationship between the optimal
production rate and the number of strands. As N increases,
the optimum moves from point 3 to point 2 to point 1 (of Fig.
3(a)) with the maximum value of the objective function oc-
curring at the value of N for which point 2 and point 1 coincide.
I t is apparent t h a t if a feasible design space exists and there
is some value of N < N'max for which point 1 and point 2 coin-
cide, then the production rate will be a maximum for this value,
N. Since N can only take on integer values, it is necessary to
compare the production rate defined by point 2 and NL to the
production rate defined by point 1 and A^G. Here NL is the first
integer less than N and No is the first integer greater than N.
If no such value N exists, then the maximum production
rate occurs at Ar = Nma* and the other variables are determined
by point 2 if point 2 is a member of the set of points bounding
the feasible design space. If point 2 is not a member of the set
of points bounding the feasible design space then the other
variables will be specified by point 3. Based on these obser-
vations a very direct procedure can be developed to determine
the opthnal values for the design variables. This revised pro-
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/27975/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/
cedure is given in the flow chart of Fig. 6. The nonlinear pro-
gramming problem described by equations (4-9) has thus been
reduced to a single string of calculations involving the eval-
uation of at most seven algebraic expressions and three com-
parisons.
Summary
I t has been shown t h a t an optimization approach can indicate
substantial increases in the production rate with attendant favor-
able changes in the energy consumed per unit mass of product.
The optimization procedures presented (developed after M O D
[7]) are simple and direct making them attractive for repeated
use with a wide range of materials and constraints. Computer
codes developed from either flow chart will find the global
optimum after a finite number of comparisons and success is
never dependent on any user supplied "tuning" parameters.
However, straightforward application of package algorithms may
not provide the type of result sought.
Virtually all design problems benefit by a systematic con-
sideration of the model with the purposes of simplifying the
solution and obtaining greater insight into the critical design
parameters and constraints. For the pelletizing problem such
leads to a closed form solution. In other problems certain
difficulties of an algorithmic approach may be reduced or avoided.
For example if the dimensionality of the design space is de-
creased and one obtains convexity in the feasible region, then
the likelihood of finding the global optimum is enhanced for
virtually all algorithms.
Significant advances in design methodology are possible if
the most desirable model manipulations can be identified in
advance for complex real problems. Such considerations are
under study and will be discussed further in a later paper.
References
1 Bates, H. T., "Nelder and Mead ( N E L D E R ALGO-
R I T H M ) , " Optimization Techniques with Fortran, by Kuester,
J. L., and Mize, J. H., McGraw-Hill, N . Y., 1973.
2 Siddall, J. N., "Subroutine R A N D O M , " OPTISEP De-
signers' Optimization Subroutines, M E / 7 4 / D S N / R E P 2 , Faculty
of Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada, 1974.
3 Siddall, J. N., "Subroutine D A V I D , " OPTISEP De-
signer's Optimization Subroutines, M E / 7 4 / D S N / R E P 2 , Faculty
of Engineering, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,
1974.
4 Siddall, J. N., "Subroutine S E E K 3 , " OPTISEP De-
signer's Optimization Subroutines, M E / 7 4 / R E P 2 , Faculty of
Engineering, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1974.
5 Townsend, M. A., and Johnson, G. E., "In Favor of Con-
jugate Directions: A Generalized Acceptable Point Algorithm
for Function Minimization," J. Franklin Inst., in press.
6 Johnson, R. C., Optimum Design of Mechanical Elements,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1921.
7 Johnson, R. C., Mechanical Design Synthesis - Creative
Design and Optimization, 2nd ed., Krieger Publishing Co., Inc.,
New York, 1978.
8 Johnson, R. C , "A Method of Optimum Design," in-
vited paper presented at ASME Design Automation Conference,
Chicago, Sept. 27, 1977.
9 Johnson, R. C , "Three Dimensional Variation Diagrams
for Control of Calculations in Optimum Design," Trans. ASME,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, Aug. 1967, pp. 391-398.
10 Ellis, J., "Johnson's Method of Optimum Design Applied
to a Problem with Simple Functional Relationships," Comp.
Aided Des., Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan. 1976, pp. 9-12.
11 Ellis, J., "A Note on Small-Scale Design Optimization,'
ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 99, No. 4, 1977,
pp. 915-916.
12 Johnson, G. E., "Energy Cosnumption and Drive Selec-
tion for Plastics Pelletizing Machines: An Analytical Study,"
Soc. of Plast. Eng. Tech. Papers, Vol. 22, April 1976, pp. 616-617.
13 Johnson, G. E., and Townsend, M. A., "Nonoptimal
Termination Properties of Quadratic Approximation Interpola-
tion Univariate Searches," J. Franklin Inst., Vol. 306, No. 3,
1978, p p . 257-266.
OCTOBER 1979, V o l . 101 / 655