In-mold sensor concept to calculate process-specific rheological properties

G. A. Pacher, G. R. Berger, W. Friesenbichler, D. P. Gruber, and J. Macher

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1593, 179 (2014);

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4873759
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1593/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 In-mold sensor concept to calculate process-specific
rheological properties
G.A. Pacher1*, G.R. Berger2, W. Friesenbichler2, D.P. Gruber1 and J. Macher1
1
Polymer Competence Center Leoben GmbH, Roseggerstrae 12, Leoben, Austria
gernot.pacher@pccl.at; dieter.gruber@pccl.at; johannes .macher@pccl.at
2
Department of Polymer Engineering and Science, Chair of Injection Molding of Polymers, Montanuniversitaet Leoben,
Otto Gloeckel Strasse 2, Leoben, Austria
gerald.berger@unileoben.ac.at; walter.friesenbichler@unileoben.ac.at

Abstract: To gain extended knowledge on the flow behavior of polymer melts during filling phase of the injection molding
process, an injection mold featuring complex sensor technology was developed. Three triple-combined FOS MTPS408 cavity
sensors (FOS Messtechnik GmbH) are aligned along the flow path of a plate-shaped cavity. Each sensor features an infrared
detector, a type K thermocouple, and a piezo-electric pressure detector. This configuration enables the local and transient recording
of melt temperature, mold temperature and cavity pressure near gate, part center and end of part simultaneously. Averaged melt
velocities are determined by evaluating the differing times of the rising edges of the infrared sensors. Local melt velocities and
viscosities are calculated at each sensor position by evaluation of the gradients of temperature and pressure.
Moreover, the used injection mold is equipped with RHCM technologies to additionally influence the mold surface temperature
and hence the filling of the cavity. The specimens are plate-shaped parts having cut-outs and ribs similar to geometries found in
numerous industrial applications such as cover panels.
The application of this in-mold sensor concept provides novel possibilities for the systematic in-line analysis and evaluation of
process-parameters in injection molding. Further studies will be carried out to connect the process-specific properties to the
specimen morphology; aiming at controlling morphology by adjusting process parameters.

Keywords: sensors, injection molding, rheology

INTRODUCTION
Rapid Heat Cycle Molding (RHCM) is an injection
molding technology, in which injection molds are
rapidly heated to a high temperature, usually higher
than the glass transition temperature of the polymer
material, before melt-injection and rapidly cooled
down to solidify the shaped polymer melt in mold
cavity for ejection. Since the elevated mold
temperature can eliminate the unwanted premature
melt freezing during filling stage, the melt flow
resistance is greatly reduced and the filling ability of
the polymer melt is also significantly improved. As a
result, plastic parts with excellent surface appearance
can be obtained [1-2].
It is well known that pressure, temperature and
velocity of the polymer during filling are the most
important factors in injection molding [3-4]. However,
the usage of in-mold sensors to monitor these factors is
often disregarded. To achieve better measures to
control polymer morphology and part quality already
during processing, it is of great importance to
implement fast and reliable sensors.
Thus the used mold-cavity is equipped with three
triple-combined mold-cavity sensors to acquire the
transient cavity process parameters during injection
molding process. Each sensor features a piezo-electric
cavity pressure detector, a thermocouple mold surface
temperature detector, and an infrared melt temperature
detector, the latter allows the measurement of both, the
Proceedings of PPS-29
AIP Conf. Proc. 1593, 179-182 (2014); doi: 10.1063/1.4873759
2014 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1227-9/$30.00
melt temperature and prior to the melt front arrival the
opposite mold surface temperature [5].
Moreover, the used injection mold is equipped with
two RHCM technologies to influence the mold surface
temperature dynamically and hence the filling of the
cavity.
This work focuses on the knowledge acquired by
analyzing and interpreting the data recorded from the
in-mold sensors, especially the IR-temperature and the
pressure. These data are used to calculate process-
specific rheological parameters [6], which do not only
improve the understanding of the effects of rapid heat
cycle molding, but in future will facilitate the
customization of the polymer-morphology of a plastic
part by selective control of process parameters.
EXPERIMENTAL
Injection Mold
Figure 1 shows a rendering of the injection mold
focusing on the ejection-sided mold insert used for the
experiments. This mold insert was specifically
designed to provide plate-shaped parts featuring cut-
outs, ribs and thin-wall regions. The bright areas in
Figure 1 are the sections where the surrounding cavity
is heated by aluminum-nitride ceramic heating
elements located 3 mm below the mold surface (Heater
size: 25 x 25 x 3 mm, [7]). The heaters can be operated
at temperatures up to 400 C.

179
 The fixed mold half is planar and heated by an areal
fluid exchange heating/cooling technology [8], using a
heat exchange chamber of 240 x 175 mm, situated
5 mm below the mold surface. The mold steel has a
thermal conductivity of 27 W/(mK) at 200 C. The
water-temperature is limited to 160 C due to the used
temperature controller. The optimization and parameter
tuning of the two RHCM systems was subject to earlier
studies [9].
Figure 1: Rendering of the RHCM injection mold.
In-Mold Sensor Concept
As mentioned above, the mold insert is equipped
with three triple-combined mold cavity sensors [5] to
acquire the transient cavity process parameters during
RHCM (see Figure 2a). Each sensor features a piezo-
electric cavity pressure detector, a type K
thermocouple mold surface temperature detector, and
an infrared melt temperature detector, which can
measure both, the melt temperature and, prior to the
melt front arrival, the opposite mold surface
temperature (see Figure 2b). The used cavity sensors
have the same dimensions as standard pressure sensors
used in injection molding. Thus, it is possible to
transfer the sensors to industrial injection molds.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2: Plastic part with sensor positions marked as white
spots (a); sensor schematics [5] (b).
The IR-sensor elements are calibrated for an
emissivity of 0.95. Therefore, the polymer examined
was colored black to achieve similar emissivity. Due to
a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating on the opposite
180
fixed mold half surface, its emissivity is also
about 0.95. Hence, the calibration of the sensor's IR-
element is sufficiently valid for both, polymer and
mold surface [10]. Due to this fact it is possible to
measure the heating of the fixed mold half before
filling, see Figure 3.
Figure 3: Typical measurement curves of one sensor in a
RHCM cycle.
Sensor data analysis
Previous work of Kazmer [6] describes the
possibility of measuring the melt velocity by analyzing
the melt temperature ramping rate. Furthermore, using
the triple-combined sensors, the melt pressure can be
recorded at the same location simultaneously.
According to the concept described in [6], a process
specific melt viscosity can be calculated.
Additionally, the melt velocity was estimated by
evaluating the differing times of the rising edges of the
infrared signals. This method leads to only two mean
values for the melt velocity between the three sensors,
whereas the method described above delivers three
values, one at each sensor position.
The infrared sensor is able to detect radiation as soon
as the polymer melt begins to flow over the circular
sapphire window which covers the detector. With the
progression of the flow front, the amount of radiation
increases. Assuming constant melt temperature during
overflowing the sapphire window, the temperature
observed by the infrared pyrometer can be considered a
function of the melt front location and the melt
velocity [6]:
(Eq. 1)
In Eq. 1,  and denote the area of the sapphire
window and the radius of the IR detector, respectively.
 is intended to be set to the melt temperature.
Assuming constant melt temperature over the whole
cross-section of the channel is a first engineering
approach in case of RHCM, which allows for avoiding
frozen layer formation. However, by adjusting the
model via calculated averaged velocities between the
sensor positions, the better set was found to be the
temperature of the thermocouple (mold wall
temperature) before filling. The maximum temperature
ramp rate occurs when the polymer melt flow front is
directly at the centerline of the sensor (  ), see experiments. Both RHCM systems were adjusted to
Eq. 2 [6]: result in the surface temperatures defined by the DoE.
In addition to the melt velocities calculated according

(Eq. 2) to Eq. 2, average melt velocities along the cavity were
calculated by evaluating the peak positions (time and
To accurately detect the temperature increase, the distance) of the first and third infrared signal.
sampling frequency was set to 2.4 kHz for both, Table1: Design of Experiments.
infrared and piezo sensor. Injection speeds were set Nozzle Mold surf. Holding Injection
relatively low. This was to eliminate possible signal Run temperature Temperature pressure rate
lags due to sensor response times. (Tnozzle) (Tsurf) (pn) (V e)
C C bar cm/s
Now that the sensor delivers melt pressure, 1 270 115 700 15
temperature and velocity an apparent melt viscosity 2 270 125 1100 15
can be calculated. The following Eq. 3 assumes steady 3 270 125 700 35
state and isothermal flow and combines the 4 270 115 1100 35
assumptions of a Newtonian fluid and incompressible 5 290 115 700 15
flow between parallel plates (with thickness ) and 6 290 125 1100 15
delivers an apparent melt viscosity app: 7 290 125 700 35
8 290 115 1100 35
(Eq. 3) 9 270 125 700 15
10 270 115 1100 15
The gradient of the pressure should ideally be 11 270 115 700 35
calculated at the time the polymer melt flow is directly 12 270 125 1100 35
at the centerline of the sensor; meaning the same time- 13 290 125 700 15
step in which is calculated. It was observed that the 14 290 115 1100 15
pressure response is slightly delayed related to the 15 290 115 700 35
infrared temperature signal. Hence, a pressure- 16 290 125 1100 35
threshold of 10 bar was defined for robust detection of
the pressure increase. At the time the pressure ramp Figure 5 shows the correlation between these
exceeds this threshold, the gradient of the pressure averaged velocities and the velocities generated out of
ramp was calculated. The delay time until the pressure the infrared temperature signal. In general, lower
reaches the threshold value is approximately 70 ms velocities tend to have less variation than the higher
(see Figure 4). The actual delay time of the pressure ones. Sensor position 3, which is the last of three along
signal is even shorter. It was observed that the initial the flow path, shows the best correlation to the
pressure ramp is quite linear, so that its gradient is averaged velocities. At higher velocities all three
rather constant during filling. Taking this observation sensor positions deliver results lower than expected. A
into account, the actual delay time of the piezo is about reason could be that the response time of the infrared
20 ms to 30 ms (see Figure 4 bottom). pyrometer is too slow, so that the melt front has
already surpassed the sensor until the signal can be
read out.

Figure 4: Melt temperature and pressure at filling.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A 24 full factorial design of experiments (DoE)

varying nozzle temperature, mold surface temperature,
holding pressure and injection rate was carried out with
PC Lexan 163R (see Table 1). The mold surface
temperature reflects the temperature of the RHCM-
heated areas of the mold before filling. The mold
coolant temperature was set to 90 C during the
Figure 5: Comparison of melt velocities.
Data scattering at higher injection rates can also be
influenced by non-isothermal flow due to shear
heating. Since sensor 3 delivered the best correlation in
terms of melt velocity, the calculation of the melt

181
viscosity was carried out on this position. In general,
the trends of the calculated melt viscosities are
plausible. The higher the temperatures, the lower the
viscosity; as the melt velocity increases, the viscosity
decreases (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). However, the
absolute values of viscosity are considerably too high
for the used polymer. Common shear rates in injection
molding lie between 102 and 104 s-1 [11]. The
corresponding viscosities should be below 1 kPas for a
melt temperature of 290 C [12]. Furthermore, more
injection rates and temperatures will have to be
evaluated to gain significant results. As well validation
comparing experimental results with 3D-injection
molding simulation will be carried out.
Figure 6: Calculated apparent melt viscosities app.
Figure 7: Effects of temperatures on melt viscosity.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with previous research [6] it was found
that a sensor featuring both, an infrared pyrometer and
a piezo-crystal, is able to deliver valuable information
about the filling phase in injection molding. For low
melt velocities the single point velocities correlate well
with averaged velocities. The sensor response time
might be an issue at higher melt velocities. The
calculated melt viscosities show physically correct
trends and behavior, yet the absolute values seem to be
exaggerated.
More work is needed to optimize the accuracy of the
calculations and to validate experimental results by
comparison with 3D injection molding simulation,
182
aiming at in-mold viscosity values comparable to
literature values. The fact that two cavities with
differences in flow resistance were used is likely to be
an interference factor. The parallel filling leads to
irregularities of the filling velocities. This would
explain the differing correlations shown in Figure 5.
Therefore further experiments will be carried out with
only one cavity.
Further studies will be aimed at connecting the
process-specific properties to the specimen
morphology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research work of this paper was performed at the
Polymer Competence Center Leoben GmbH (PCCL,
Austria) within the framework of the COMET-program
of the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and
Technology and the Federal Ministry of Economy,
Family and Youth with contributions by Chair of
Injection Moulding of Polymers, Montanuniversitaet
Leoben and Wittmann-Battenfeld GmbH, Schfer
GmbH, Pollmann Austria GmbH, and Ernst Wittner
Ges.m.b.H. The PCCL is funded by the Austrian
Government and the State Governments of Styria and
Upper Austria.
REFERENCES
1. J. Liu, G. Zhao, et al. Polymer-Plastics Technology and
Engineering, 2011, 50.
2. G. Lucchetta; M. Fiorotto; P.F. Bariani CIRP Annals
Manuf. Technol. 2012, 61, 539-542.
3. P.D. Coates, R.G. Speight Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 1995, 209(5), 357-367.
4. D.O. Kazmer, D. Hatch Journal of Materials Processing
& Manufacturing Science 1999, 8(2), 127-140.
5. FOS MTPS 408. Injection Molding Sensor for Pressure
and Temperature, URL: www.fos-
messtechnik.de/MTPS_408_2008.pdf.
6. D.O. Kazmer, et.al: International Polymer Processing
XXVI 2011, 1; 63-72
7. Ultramic Advanced Ceramic Heaters, URL:
www.watlow.com/products/heaters/ultramic-ceramic-
heaters.cfm?famid=10.
8. Kunststoff - Institut Ldenscheid fr die
mittelstndische Wirtschaft NRW GmbH: BFMOLD -
Technologie, URL: www.kunststoff-
institut.de/download/1142.
9. G.A. Pacher, G.R. Berger, and W. Friesenbichler,
ANTEC 2013 Proceedings, Ohio, 2012
10. G.R. Berger, G.A. Pacher, and W. Friesenbichler, PPS
28 Proceedings, Pattaya, 2012
11. F. Johannaber, W. Michaeli, Handbuch Spritzgieen,
Carl Hanser Verlag, 2004
12. Autodesk Moldflow Material Database, entry
Lexan 163R