This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 11 January 2015, At: 18:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpte20

Modeling and Optimization of Injection Molding Process

Parameters for Thin-Shell Plastic Parts
a a a
Ming-Tsan Chuang , Yung-Kuang Yang & Yun-Hsiang Hsiao
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering , Minghsin University of Science and Technology ,
Hsinchu, Taiwan
Published online: 04 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Ming-Tsan Chuang , Yung-Kuang Yang & Yun-Hsiang Hsiao (2009) Modeling and Optimization of Injection
Molding Process Parameters for Thin-Shell Plastic Parts, Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering, 48:7, 745-753, DOI:
10.1080/03602550902824630

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03602550902824630

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering, 48: 745–753, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0360-2559 print=1525-6111 online
DOI: 10.1080/03602550902824630
Modeling and Optimization of Injection Molding Process
Parameters for Thin-Shell Plastic Parts
Ming-Tsan Chuang, Yung-Kuang Yang, and Yun-Hsiang Hsiao
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Minghsin University of Science and Technology,
Hsinchu, Taiwan
This paper deals with the application response surface methodol-
ogy (RSM) integrating with statistical technique to discuss variation
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015
of warpage and tensile stress properties depended on injection mold-
ing parameters during production of thin-shell plastic components.
By applying RSM analysis, a mathematical predictive model of
the warpage and tensile stress properties was developed in terms
of the injection molding parameters. The trim operation has been
optimized for a given injection molding condition by desirability
function approach and the response surface contours were con-
structed for determining the optimum conditions. Additionally, the
analysis of variance is also applied to identify the most significant
factor.
Keywords Injection molding; Optimization; RSM; Tensile stress;
Warpage
INTRODUCTION
The injection molding is an important manufacturing
process to polymers; it provides products with high dimen-
sional steadiness, low manufacture cycles and low costs.
Therefore, injection molding is a widely used process for
polymeric materials[1]. Many studies[2–6] all found that
injection molding processing parameters have crucial effects
on the quality of products. Recently, design of experiment
(DOE) has been a very useful tool to design and analyze
complicated industrial design problems. It can be to under-
stand process characteristics and to investigate how inputs
affect responses based on statistical backgrounds. In addi-
tion, it has been used to systematically determine the
optimal process parameters with fewer testing trials.
Actually, the Taguchi approach is a DOE method that
has been widely used in industrial robust design procedures.
It is a powerful and effective method to solve challenging
quality problems. Furthermore, the response surface
methodology (RSM) also has been used quite successfully
in several industrial applications like in optimizing manu-
facturing processes or designing electrical=mechanical
Address correspondence to Yung-Kuang Yang, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Minghsin University of Science and
Technology, 1, Hsin Hsing Road, Hsin Feng, 304 Hsinchu,
Taiwan. E-mail: yky@must.edu.tw
745
components. RSM is a collection of statistical and mathe-
matical methods that are useful for modeling and analyzing
engineering problems. In this technique, the main objective
is to optimize the response surface that is influenced by var-
ious process parameters. RSM also quantifies the relation-
ship between the controllable input parameters and the
obtained response surfaces[7].
Onwubolu and Kumar[8] applied RSM to present a
mathematical model for correlating the interactions on
drilling control parameters of speed, feed rate and drill dia-
meter, and their effects for axial force and torque acting on
the cutting tool during CNC drilling operations. Sarma
et al.[9] applied RSM to investigate the effect of cutting
force in the turning of glass fiber reinforced ploymer pipes
using CBN tools. A mathematical model had developed to
correlate the cutting parameters with cutting force. Sarkar
et al.[10] performed the RSM to determine optimal settings
of wire electrical discharge machining parameters for
surface roughness, dimensional shift and cutting speed.
Gaitonde et al.[11] had used the RSM to predict and
minimize the delamination in drilling of medium density
fiberboard, and so on.
In this study, a Taguchi’s L18 (21
34) orthogonal table
was applied to plan the experiments. Four controlling fac-
tors of melt temperature, mold temperature, injection
speed, and packing pressure with three levels for each fac-
tor were selected. The dimensions of warpage deformation
of the both the x-direction and the y-direction, and tensile
stress are selected quality objective.
By implementing the RSM analysis is utilized to obtain
an optimal parameter setting from a mathematical predic-
tive model (i.e., regression model) that relates the desire
outputs with the significant factors identified by the analy-
sis of variance (ANOVA). The mathematical predictive
value and the confirmation experimental value were com-
pared and the percentage error was calculated. The error
percentage is within permissible limits. In this study, the
melt temperature and the packing pressure was found to
be the most significant factors in injection molding process
for thin-shell plastic parts based on polyamide PA9 T.
 746 M.-T. CHUANG ET AL.

RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY (RSM) In this study, the following steps are the processes for
RSM is a statistical technique for determining and the parameter optimization by the RSM analysis:
representing the cause and effect relationship between true
Step 1. Use an orthogonal array table of Taguchi method
mean responses and input control variables influencing the
to design and conduct the experiments.
responses as a two or three-dimensional hyper surface[7].
Step 2. ANOVA was applied to identify the most signifi-
The objective of this study is to identify an optimal cant factor.
setting that minimizes the measured warpage dx and dy, Step 3. Use RSM analysis to model the relationship between
and maximizes the tensile strength for the polyamide
the controlled parameters and targeted outputs via regression
PA9 T produced components. To resolve this type of
models. An optimal setting is then identified by maximizing a
multi-output parameter design problems, an objective
combined desirability function, DF.
function, F(x), is defined as follows,
Step 4. Represent the direct and interactive effects of pro-
!P
n
1
cess variables on the best parameters through two dimen-
Y
n wi
sional and three dimensional graphs.
DF ¼ diwi j¼1
ð1Þ Step 5. Verify the optimal solutions by additional
i¼1
experiments.
F ðxÞ ¼
DF
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015

where the di is the desirability defined for the ith targeted EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS
output and the wi is the weighting of the di. For various Material
goals of each targeted output, the desirability, di, is defined A new heat-resistant polyamide, ‘‘PA9 T’’ is a
in different forms. If a goal is to reach a specific value of Ti, heat-resistant polyamide derived from terephthalic acid
the desirability di is: and nonanediamine[12]. ‘‘PA9 T’’ has a superior balance of
di ¼ 0 if Yi  Lowi properties, including low water absorption, high chemical

 resistance, and excellent resistance to abrasion, in addition
Yi
Lowi to heat-resistance, and is praised as ‘‘a new material with
di ¼ if Lowi < Yi < Ti
Ti
Lowi high functions,’’ compared with other existing high-

 ð2Þ
Yi
Highi temperature engineering plastics like heat-resistant polya-
di ¼ if Ti < Yi < Highi
Ti
Highi mide (PA6 T), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), and liquid
di ¼ 0 if Yi  Highi crystal polyesters (LCP). Therefore, adaptive applied to
the electronic parts which require heat-resistance and
For a goal is to find a maximum, the desirability is shown dimensional stability, such as connectors, switches, relays,
as follows: parts for three-dimensional circuits, bobbins, etc., for perso-
nal computers and portable communication devices. Table 1
di ¼ 0 if Yi  Lowi lists the basic physical properties of the polyamide PA9 T.


Yi
Lowi
di ¼ if Lowi < Yi < Highi ð3Þ
Highi
Lowi Schematic of a Specimen
di ¼ 1 if Yi  Highi Figure 1 shows the dimensions of a desired final pro-
duct. It is one of cover components used in the electron
For a goal to search for a minimum, the desirability can be power supply. Figure 1 also shows the specimen for a
defined by the following formulas:
TABLE 1
di ¼ 1 if Yi  Lowi

 Basic physical property of plastic composites PA9 T
Highi
Yi
di ¼ if Lowi < Yi < Highi ð4Þ Properties Parameter
Highi
Lowi
di ¼ 0 if Yi  Highi Density, g=cm3 1.62
Glass fiber, % 33
where the Yi is the found value of the ith output during
Tensile strength 190
optimization processes; the Lowi and the Highi are the
(Room temperature), MPa
minimum and the maximum values of the experimental
Tensile flexural strength 225
data for the ith output. In the Eq. (1), the wi is set to one
(Room temperature), MPa
since the di is equally important in this study. The DF is
Elongation, % 3.2
a combined desirability function[7], and the objective is to
Heat distortion temperature,  C 285
choose an optimal setting that maximizes a combined
Mold shrinkage, % 0.1
desirability function DF, i.e., minimizes F(x).
 PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR THIN-SHELL PLASTIC PARTS 747

TABLE 3
Results of experimental runs
Run no. A B C D dx (mm) dy (mm) r (MPa)
1 1 1 1 1 0.2155 0.2604 48.89
2 1 2 2 2 0.2105 0.2524 45.25
3 1 3 3 3 0.1862 0.2012 40.20
4 2 1 1 2 0.1798 0.2189 41.47
5 2 2 2 3 0.1728 0.1864 40.82
6 2 3 3 1 0.1918 0.2389 46.44
7 3 1 2 1 0.1745 0.2081 45.45
8 3 2 3 2 0.1715 0.1999 42.54
9 3 3 1 3 0.1595 0.1856 36.89
10 1 1 3 3 0.1848 0.2032 38.32
11 1 2 1 1 0.2158 0.2674 48.95
12 1 3 2 2 0.1932 0.2414 42.68
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015

FIG. 1. The configurations of the specimens. 13 2 1 2 3 0.1732 0.1892 38.73

14 2 2 3 1 0.1875 0.2252 48.85
critical quality targets including the warpage at the middle 15 2 3 1 2 0.1835 0.2154 39.17
locations of the edge of both the x-direction and the 16 3 1 3 2 0.1612 0.1974 40.90
y-direction, and tensile specimen are included in this study. 17 3 2 1 3 0.1545 0.1804 37.42
The experiments were carried out on a computerized 18 3 3 2 1 0.1778 0.2134 45.68
reciprocating screw injection-molding machine, model no.
OS-50CH, manufacturing by Outstanding Machinery
MFG., Co., Ltd. Taipei Hsien, Taiwan, with capability of the Moldflow1 simulation. The melting temperature
of a maximum injection pressure of 240 MPa, an injection (i.e., factor A( C)), the mold temperature (i.e., factor
rate of 70 cm3=sec, and a maximum clamp force of 500 kN. B( C)), the injection speed (i.e., factor C(%)), and the pack-
Experimental Parameters and Design ing pressure (i.e., factor D(MPa)) are the factors for the
The product quality produced by the injection molding is injection molding process, respectively.
always affected by the process parameters like the cooling Table 3 lists eighteen runs based on an orthogonal array
time, injection pressure, injection speed, filling time, melting L18 (21
34), consisting of 4 experimental factors with three
temperature, ejecting pressure, molding temperature, and levels for each factor.
packing pressure, etc. The effects of the molding variables
on the physical and mechanical properties of thermoplastics TESTING APPARATUS
have been studied by researchers[2–6]. For a preliminary Warpage Measurement
study, Moldflow1 software is utilized to identify some The amounts of warpage at the middle locations of the
crucial settings for the injection molding process. edge of both the x-direction and the y-direction specified
Table 2 lists the process factors and factor levels of by the customers are measured. A 3D-CNC CMM (series
the injection molding conditions based on first result 500, Mitutoyo Co., Japan) with 0.1 mm resolution is
utilized. Figure 1 shows the dimensions of a specimen
and the middle locations of the edge of both the x-direction
TABLE 2 and the y-direction specified that have been selected to
Experimental factors and factor levels measure the amounts of warpage. The warpage distortion
Experimental measurement of d at the x-direction (i.e., dx.) and the
control factors y-direction (i.e., dy.) are given in Table 3.

Levels of Melt Mold Injection Packing Tensile Stress Tests

simulation temperature temperature speed pressure Figure 1 shows the configuration of the tensile test speci-
factors A ( C) B ( C) C (%) D (MPa) men. The ASTM D638-91 specification is followed for ten-
sile tests by using a 25 kN computerized MTS model 810
1 310 115 65 40
closed-loop servo-hydraulic system (manufactured by
2 320 125 75 45
MTS Systems Co.; MN, USA) at a speed of 1 mm=min
3 330 135 85 50
under the room temperature. The specimens were
 748 M.-T. CHUANG ET AL.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Definition of an Objective Function
The objective of this study is to identify an optimal
setting maximizing tensile stresses as well as minimizing
warpage. Hence, the Eq. (3) will be selected as a desirability
function form for maximizing the tensile stress. On the
other hand, the Eq. (4) is suitable for minimizing the
warpage. A combined desirability function can be calcu-
lated from the Eq. (1)[7].

FIG. 2. A typical plot of stress-strain curve under the conditions
A3B3C1D3 (Run no. 9 of Table 3) and A1B2C1D1 (Run no. 11 of Table 3).
monotonically loaded in tension until fracture. The load
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015
ANOVA Results
In order to analyze the results of the experimental
designs, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is utilized. The
ANOVA is used to investigate the relationship between a
response variable and one or more independent variables.

and the displacement are continuously recorded by soft-
ware. The calculated stress was listed in Table 3.
Figure 2 shows a typical the stress-strain curve for the
tensile test specimens under the conditions A3B3C1D3
(Run no. 9 of Table 3) and A1B2C1D1 (Run no. 11 of
Table 3) of the injection-molding process. Figure 2 clear
indicates that the tensile stress values difference when
varying the injection molding parameters.
It can be determined if the difference between the average
of the levels is greater than what could reasonably be
expected from the variation that occurs within the level.
The ANOVA is conducted and the results are shown in
Tables 4(a–c). A ‘‘Model F Value’’ is calculated from a
model mean square divided by a residual mean square.
It is a test of comparing a model variance with a residual
variance. If the variances are closed to the same, the ratio

TABLE 4
(a) ANOVA results of (a) dx, (b) dy, and (c) r
Excepted sum
Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean square F value P value of square Contribution %
(a)
Model 5.02E-03 2 2.51E-03 103.21 <0.0001 4.97E-03 92.32
A. 3.57E-03 1 3.57E-03 146.81 <0.0001 3.55E-03 65.85
D 1.45E-03 1 1.45E-03 59.61 <0.0001 1.43E-03 26.47
Residual 3.65E-04 15 2.43E-05 4.13E-04 7.68
Total 5.39E-03 17 5.39E-03 100.00
(b)
Model 1.11E-02 3 3.71E-03 56.85 <0.0001 1.09E-02 90.79
A 4.85E-03 1 4.85E-03 74.29 <0.0001 4.78E-03 39.71
C 3.23E-04 1 3.23E-04 4.96 0.0429 2.58E-04 2.14
D 5.96E-03 1 5.96E-03 91.30 <0.0001 5.89E-03 48.93
Residual 9.14E-04 14 6.53E-05 1.11E-03 9.21
Total 1.20E-02 17 1.20E-02 100.00
(c)
Model 2.59Eþ02 3 8.62Eþ01 70.39 <0.0001 2.55Eþ02 92.45
A 1.98Eþ01 1 1.98Eþ01 16.16 0.0013 1.86Eþ01 6.73
D 2.24Eþ02 1 2.24Eþ02 183.19 <0.0001 2.23Eþ02 80.92
B2 1.45Eþ01 1 1.45Eþ01 11.81 0.0040 1.32Eþ01 4.80
Residual 17.14 14 1.22Eþ00 2.08Eþ01 7.55
Total 2.76Eþ02 17 2.76Eþ02 100.00
 PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR THIN-SHELL PLASTIC PARTS 749

will be closed to one and it is less likely that any of the
factors have a significant effect on the response. As for a
‘‘Model P Value,’’ if the ‘‘Model P Value’’ is very small
(less than 0.05) then the terms in the model have a signifi-
cant effect on the response[7]. Similarly, an ‘‘F Value’’ on
any individual factor terms is calculated from a term mean
square divided by a residual mean square. It is a test that
compares a term variance with a residual variance. If the
variances are close to the same, the ratio will be close to
one and it is less likely that the term has a significant effect
on the response. Furthermore, if a ‘‘P Value’’ of any model
terms is very small (less than 0.05), the individual terms
in the model have a significant effect on the response.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015
Simultaneously, based on the ANOVA results, it also
clearly shows that the contribution percentage for the fac-
tors effect on the response.
Table 4(a) lists the ANOVA result of the dx. A ‘‘Model
F value’’ of 103.21 with a ‘‘Model P value’’ of less than
0.0001 suggested that the select model is significant. A ‘‘P
value’’ for the model term ‘‘A’’ (the melting temperature)
also is less than 0.0001, indicating that the model term
‘‘A’’ is significant. Similarly, the model terms ‘‘D’’ (the
packing pressure) is also significant. In summary, the terms
‘‘A’’, and ‘‘D’’ are significant terms for the dx. At the same
time, the contribution percentage for the dx is 65.85%,
26.47% on the terms ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘D’’, respectively.

FIG. 3. (a) Response surface plots for the dx. (b) Response surface plots for the dy. (c). Response surface plots for the r.
 750 M.-T. CHUANG ET AL.

Table 4(b) lists the ANOVA result of the dy. A ‘‘Model F dy ¼ 1:09851  2:01
103
A  5:19167
104
value’’ of 56.85 with a ‘‘Model P value’’ of less than 0.0001
implied that the selected model is significant. A ‘‘P value’’
C  4:45667
103
D ð6Þ
for the model term ‘‘A’’ also is less than 0.0001, which is
indicating that the model term ‘‘A’’ is significant, similarly, r ¼ 170:33431  0:12840
A þ 4:73128
B  0:86465
the model terms ‘‘C’’ (the injection speed) and model terms
D  0:019015
B2 ð7Þ
‘‘D’’ are also significant impact to the dy. Furthermore, the
contribution percentage for the dy are 39.71%, 2.14%, Furthermore, by investigating the correlation coeffi-
48.93% on the terms ‘‘A’’, ‘‘C’’, ‘‘D’’, respectively. cients, R2, which measures the strength of a linear relation-
Table 4(c) lists the ANOVA result of the r. A ‘‘Model F ship between the experimental data and the predicted
value’’ of 70.39 with a ‘‘Model P value’’ of 0.0001 implied values from the regression equations, the proportion of
that the selected model is significant. A ‘‘P value’’ for the total variability in the dx deviation that can be explained
model term ‘‘A’’ is 0.0013, which is less than 0.05, indicat- by Eq. (8) is
ing that the model term ‘‘A’’ is significant, similarly, the
model terms ‘‘D’’ is also significant. Additionally, there is SSModel 5:02
102
R2 ¼ ¼ ¼ 93:31ð%Þ ð8Þ
a second-order terms of factor, ‘‘B2’’, which have impacts SSTotal 5:39
102
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015

on the r. In summary, the terms ‘‘A’’, ‘‘D’’, and ‘‘B2’’are where SS is the abbreviation of ‘‘Sum of Squares.’’
significant terms for the r. Furthermore, the contribution Similarly, the proportion of total variability in the dy
percentage for the r are 6.73%, 80.92%, 4.80% on the deviation that can be explained by Eq. (9) is
terms ‘‘A’’, ‘‘D’’, ‘‘B2’’, respectively.
SSModel 1:11
102
Regression Models and Response Surface Graphs R2 ¼ ¼ ¼ 92:41ð%Þ ð9Þ
SSTotal 1:20
102
Considering the most significant terms from Tables 4(a),
4(b) and 4(c), regression models can be developed. Mathe- and the proportion of total variability in the r deviation
matical predictive models for the warpage dx, warpage dy, that can be explained by Eq. (10) is
and tensile stress r are shown as follows:
SSModel 2:59
102
3 3 R2 ¼ ¼ ¼ 93:84ð%Þ ð10Þ
dx ¼ 0:83390  1:725
10
A  2:19833
10
D ð5Þ SSTotal 2:76
102

TABLE 5
Residual results of experiment and prediction
dx (mm) dy (mm) r (MPa)
Run no. Actual Pred. Residual Actual Pred. Residual Actual Pred. Residual
1 0.2155 0.2112 0.0043 0.2604 0.2634 0.0030 48.89 47.68 1.21
2 0.2105 0.2002 0.0103 0.2524 0.2359 0.0165 45.25 45.25 0.00
3 0.1862 0.1892 0.0030 0.2012 0.2084 0.0072 40.20 39.03 1.17
4 0.1798 0.1830 0.0032 0.2189 0.2210 0.0021 41.47 42.07 0.60
5 0.1728 0.1720 0.0008 0.1864 0.1935 0.0071 40.82 39.65 1.17
6 0.1918 0.1940 0.0022 0.2389 0.2329 0.0060 46.44 46.39 0.05
7 0.1745 0.1767 0.0022 0.2081 0.2180 0.0099 45.45 45.11 0.34
8 0.1715 0.1657 0.0058 0.1999 0.1905 0.0094 42.54 42.69 0.14
9 0.1595 0.1547 0.0048 0.1856 0.1786 0.0070 36.89 36.46 0.43
10 0.1848 0.1892 0.0044 0.2032 0.2084 0.0052 38.32 39.03 0.71
11 0.2158 0.2112 0.0046 0.2674 0.2634 0.0040 48.95 49.58 0.63
12 0.1932 0.2002 0.0070 0.2414 0.2359 0.0055 42.68 43.35 0.67
13 0.1732 0.1720 0.0012 0.1892 0.1935 0.0043 38.73 37.75 0.98
14 0.1875 0.1940 0.0065 0.2252 0.2329 0.0077 48.85 48.29 0.56
15 0.1835 0.1830 0.0005 0.2154 0.2210 0.0056 39.17 42.07 2.90
16 0.1612 0.1657 0.0045 0.1974 0.1905 0.0069 40.90 40.79 0.11
17 0.1545 0.1547 0.0002 0.1804 0.1786 0.0018 37.42 38.36 0.94
18 0.1778 0.1767 0.0011 0.2134 0.2180 0.0046 45.68 45.11 0.57
 PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR THIN-SHELL PLASTIC PARTS
Figures 3(a)–3(c) are shown the estimated response
surface (i.e., 3D surface graphs) for the warpage dx, the
warpage dy, and the tensile stress r, according to the design
parameters of melting temperature and packing pressure,
while the mold temperature and injection speed remain
constant that are no significant factors via ANOVA results.
Figure 3(a) clearly indicates that by increasing the melting
temperature and packing pressure values, under the factors
of mold temperature is 124.4 C and injection speed is 85%,
the amount of dx is minimized. Furthermore, in the higher
values of packing pressure by increasing the melting
temperature values, dx decreases.
Figure 3(b) shows the estimate response surface for the
dy correlation the factors of melting temperature and pack-
ing pressure. It indicated that appearance is similar to
Figure 3(a).
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015
Figure 3(c) is also shown the estimate response surface
for the r correlation the factors of melting temperature
and packing pressure, under the factors of mold tempera-
ture is 124.4 C and injection speed is 85%. Figure 3(c) indi-
cates that by increasing the melting temperature values and
FIG. 4. (a) Normal probability plot for the residual of dx. (b) Normal probility plot for the residual of dy. (c). Normal probability plot for the residual of r.
751
decreasing the packing pressure, the amount of r is maxi-
mized. Moreover, in the higher values of melting tempera-
ture by decreasing the packing pressure, r increases.
Regression Models Adequacy Check
The adequacy of the regression models shall be inspected
to confirm that the mathematical predictive models have
extracted all relevant information from the experimental
data. The primary diagnostic tool is residual analysis[13].
The residuals are defined as the differences between the
actual and predictive values for each point in the design.
The residual results for the dx, dy, and r are shown in
Table 5. If a mathematical predictive model is adequate,
the distribution of residuals should be normally distributed.
Minitab1[14] program is used to perform a normality test.
For the normality test, the hypotheses are listed as follows,
1. Null hypothesis: the residual data follows a normal
distribution.
2. Alternative hypothesis: the residual data does not follow
a normal distribution.
 752
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015
FIG. 5. (a) Studentized residual plot for the predicted of dx. (b) Studentized residual plot for the predicted of dy. (c)Studentized residual plot for the
predicted of r.
The vertical axis of Figures 4(a)–4(c) has a probability
scale and the horizontal axis with a data scale. A least-
square line is then fitted to the plotted points. The line
forms an estimate of the cumulative distribution function
for the population from which data are drawn.
As a ‘‘P-Value’’ that is smaller than 0.05, it will be
classified as ‘‘significant’’, and the null hypothesis has to
be rejected. All of the ‘‘P-values’’ shown on the lower
right-hand side of Figures 4(a)–4(c) are larger than 0.05;
thus, the residuals for the dx, the dy and the r follow a nor-
mal distribution and the predictive regression models have
extracted all available information from the experimental
data. The rest of the information defined as residuals can
be considered as errors from performing the experiments.
Additionally, Figures 5(a)–5(c) also revealed that they have
no obvious pattern and unusual structure[7]. This implies
that the regression models proposed are adequate and there
is no reason to suspect any violation of the independence or
constant variance assumptions.
M.-T. CHUANG ET AL.
Optimal Setting and Confirmation Tests
An optimal setting can be obtained by choosing appro-
priate combinations of factors that maximize the desirabil-
ity function in Eq. (1) from random starting points. An
optimal setting since it gives a maximized value of desir-
ability conducted with melting temperature settings of
330.0 C, mold temperature of 124.4 C, injection speed of
85%, and packing pressure of 42.94 MPa. The predicted
values of regression models for the dx, the dy, and the r
are 0.1703 mm, 0.1997 mm and 44.48 MPa, respectively.
In order to verify the accuracy of the regression models
developed, confirmation experiment was performed. The
confirmation run is conducted with an appropriate combi-
nation optimal setting; namely, a melting temperature of
330.0 C, a mold temperature of 124.4 C, an injection speed
of 85%, and a packing pressure of 42.94 MPa by operated.
The experimental values of confirmation run for the dx, dy,
and r are 0.1675 mm, 0.1960 mm and 45.52 MPa, respec-
tively. The confirmation experiment carried out to check
 PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR THIN-SHELL PLASTIC PARTS
the validity of the developed regression models predicted
within 3% error. Therefore, the regression models for the
dx, dy, and r evolved through RSM can be used to success-
fully predict the values for any combination of the melting
temperature, mold temperature, injection speed, and pack-
ing pressure conditions within the range of the experimen-
tation conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
This study utilized an orthogonal array table proposed by
statistical technique to replace a traditional way of planning
the experiments from the RSM approach. This approach
tries to strike the balance amongst low costs, high efficiencies
and good accuracy. The validation process via experimental
data further ensures the quality of works. Based on the
experimental results, analysis of variance (ANOVA), a
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 18:17 11 January 2015
developed mathematical predictive model for the desired
warpage dx, warpage dy, and tensile stress r., and the
verification runs, results are summarized as follows:
1. The optimal setting via the RSM analysis is correspond-
ing to a melting temperature setting of 330.0 C, a mold
temperature of 124.4 C, an injection speed of 85%, and
a packing pressure of 42.94 MPa.
2. The ANOVA result indicates that the melt temperature
and packing pressure are significant parameters to this
process.
3. Mathematical regression models have been developed to
accurately predict the desire target outputs with less
than 3% error between the predicted values and the
experimental data for the confirmation runs. Hence, a
trial-and-error process can be eliminated so that the effi-
ciency of designing an optimal solution is greatly
improved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the National Science
Council of the Republic of China, for financially supporting
this research (Contract No. NSC97-2221-E-159-006) and
753
Ming Hsin University of Science and Technology (Contract
No. MUST-97-ME-009).
REFERENCES
1. Brent, S.A. Plastics Materials and Processing, 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall:
New Jersey, 2006.
2. Ismail, H.; Suryadiansyah, R. A comparative study of the effect of
degradation on the properties of PP=NR and PP=RR blends. Polym.
Plast. Technol. Eng. 2004, 43 (2), 319–340.
3. Shen, C.; Wang, L.; Cao, W.; Wu, J. Optimization for injection
molding process conditions of the refrigeratory top cover using com-
bination method of artificial neural network and genetic algorithms.
Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 2007, 46 (2), 105–112.
4. SadAbadi, H.; Ghasemi, M. Effects of some injection molding process
parameters on fiber orientation tensor of short glass fiber polystyrene
composites (SGF=PS). J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 2007, 26 (17),
1729–1741.
5. Lin, Y.H.; Deng, W.J.; Huang, C.H.; Yang, Y.K. Optimization of
injection molding process for tensile and wear properties of polypro-
pylene components via Taguchi and design of experiments Method.
Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 2008, 47 (1), 96–105.
6. Candal, M.V.; Rojas, H.; Jimnez, J. Effect of the injection molding
process conditions over the determination of Kt curves for plastic
parts, Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 2008, 47 (1), 89–95.
7. Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. Response Surface Methodology:
Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 2nd
Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc.: New York, 2002.
8. Onwubolu, G.C.; Kumar, S. Response surface methodology-based
approach to CNC drilling operations. J. Mater. Process. Technol.
2006, 171, 41–47.
9. Sarma, P.M.M.S.; Karunamoorthy, L.; Palanikumar, K. Modeling
and analysis of cutting force in turning of GFRP composites by
CBN tools. J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 2008, 27 (7), 711–723.
10. Sarkar, S.; Sekh, M.; Mitra, S.; Bhattacharyya, B. Modeling and
optimization of wire electrical discharge machining of c-TiAl in trim
cutting operation. J. of Mater. Process. Technol. 2008, 205, 376–387.
11. Gaitonde, V.N.; Karnik, S.R.; Davim, J.P. Prediction and minimiza-
tion of delamination in drilling of medium-density fiberboard (MDF)
using response surface methodology and Taguchi design. Mater.
Manuf. Proc. 2008, 23 (4), 377–384.
12. Development of new heat-resistant polyamide resin, ‘‘PA9 T’’, for
electronic and automobile parts, Technique Report, Kuraray Co.
Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, 1998.
13. Douglas, C.M.; Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experi-
ment, 6th Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc.: New York, 2004.
14. Minitab Inc., Quality Plaza, 1829 Pine Hall Road, State College,
Pennsylvania 16801-3008, USA.