西南交通大学学报

第 55 卷 第 2 期 Vol. 55 No. 2
JOURNAL OF SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY
2020 年 4 月 Apr. 2020

ISSN: 0258-2724 DOI：10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.2.42

Research article

Engineering

OPTIMIZATION ON THE INJECTION MOLDING PROPYPOPYLENE

PARAMETERS USING CENTRAL COMPOSITE DESIGN FOR MINIMIZING
DEFECTS

使用中央复合设计优化缺陷最小化注射成型丙烯的参数

Moh. Hartono a, b, *, Pratikto b, Purnomo B. Santoso b, Sugiono b

a
Mechanical Engineering, State Polytechnic of Malang
Malang, Indonesia, moh.hartono@polinema.ac.id
b
Mechanical Engineering, Brawijaya University
MT Haryono 167, Malang, Indonesia

Received: February 01, 2020 ▪ Review: April 5, 2020 ▪ Accepted: April 25, 2020

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Abstract
This study aims to simultaneously forecast and investigate the optimization process characterization of
the design of controlled parameters in the injection process of polypropylene molding including injection
pressure combination, clamping force, injection temperature, injection speed, and holding time, and their
interaction to produce qualified plastic by minimizing defects. The experimental methods used the central
composite design of response surface method with five factors and a variety of levels. This method is
more effective because it is an improvement on and a development from previous studies—especially
those related to the plastic molding process. Additionally, it can simultaneously predict and optimize the
obtaining of the highest quality plastic products as well as minimizing defects. The results are in the form
of a combination of control level factors and interactions among the factors that generate the robust
output of plastic products with minimum defects. Moreover, the optimum settings of the parameters
provides a global solution at an injection temperature of 275°C, injection pressure of 75 bar, injection
speed of 98%, clamping force of 88 tons, and a holding time of 8 seconds to generate a response to
product probability defects by 0.0062. The benefit is that it can reveal the behavior and characteristics of
parameter design and their interactions in the plastic injection molding process to produce qualified
plastics and minimize product defects.

Keywords: Optimization, Plastic Injection Molding, Central Composite Design, Minimizing Defect

摘要 这项研究旨在同时预测和调查聚丙烯成型过程中受控参数设计的优化过程特征，包括注射压
 2 Hartono et al. / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.2 Apr. 2020
力组合，锁模力，注射温度，注射速度和保持时间，以及它们相互作用以生产合格塑料的设计。
通过减少缺陷。实验方法采用响应面法的中央复合设计，具有五个因素和不同层次。这种方法更
有效，因为它是对先前研究（特别是与塑料成型工艺有关的研究）的改进和发展。此外，它可以
同时预测和优化获得最高质量的塑料产品，并最大程度地减少缺陷。结果是以控制水平因素和因
素之间的相互作用的组合形式，这些因素可产生具有最少缺陷的塑料产品，从而获得稳定的输出
。此外，参数的最佳设置可在 275°C 的注射温度，75 酒吧的注射压力，98％的注射速度，88 吨
的夹持力以及 8 秒钟的保持时间下提供整体解决方案，以产生响应将概率缺陷乘以 0.0062。这样
做的好处是，它可以揭示参数设计的行为和特征，以及它们在塑料注射成型过程中的相互作用，
从而生产出合格的塑料并最大程度地减少产品缺陷。
关键词: 优化，注塑成型，中央复合设计，最大程度地减少缺陷
I. INTRODUCTION
Plastic have become very popular as a
primary material used to fabricate many of the
products that humans use in their daily lives, such
as tools and equipment for the home and office.
Compared to wood and metal tools, those made
of plastic are commonly chosen. Plastic has a
number of important benefits, such as lightness,
strength, and resistance to corrosion. Plastic also
varies in color, it can be clear, it does not easily
biodegrade, and its insulation properties are quite
good. The use of plastic had developed rapidly,
and its use has penetrated into many fields and
activity in everyday life, ranging from food
packaging, tools, household goods, toys, and rope
to more modern equipment, such as electrical
components, electronics, medical devices,
automotive components and other equipment.
The properties of these plastic materials are the
hallmarks of plastic, and this make it difficult to
replace with other materials, and there are
virtually no materials that cannot be replaced by
plastic [1].
Strong competition in industry and
commercial markets has resulted in a demand for
factories to manufacture good quality and
inexpensive products. Plastic is very commonly
used as the material for products used for medical
equipment, computers, telecommunications, and
automotive components. There is a significant
demand for improvements in the quality of low-
cost products, which means that companies have
to pay attention to certain factors, such as market
demand, product lifecycle compression, increases
in demand within a short time, and operators who
are able to work with sophisticated machines [2].
All these factors are very important in
injection molding because the high cost of capital
is related to costly machines and molds that will
be used in the production process [3]. To produce
high qualified products, useful information from
reliable sources is needed to decide, produce, and
improve the quality of the products and mold
characteristic based on the production
requirements. There will be time delays and
additional costs if the design of the products and
the production process are not understood and or
carefully evaluated. Another important
consideration is the molds. In this case, they are
crucial for the evaluation of lead time, standards
and the cost of parts [4]. Injection molding is
very commonly used to produce plastic parts at
high production rates and with good control
regarding product dimensions. This recurrent
process is conducted in three stages: (i) filling,
(ii) packing, and (iii) cooling. In the first stage,
polymer melt fills part of the cavity, flowing
through the sprue, runners, and gates. During the
packing, more polymer melt enters the cavity to
balance the shrinkage of the parts which is
caused by cooling. The cooling happens
simultaneously with the filling and packing and is
related to the polymer plasticization, which
requires more time to produce about 80% of
products [5]. The quality of the products is
determined based on their dimensions, stability,
appearance, and mechanical properties. In the
manufacturing set-up, engineers conduct the
important tasks to optimize the process and select
suitable machine or tools needed in the process.
To optimize the process, all variables shown in
Figure 1 should be considered. In this case, if
there is a change in one of the process parameters,
the others will be impacted because there is a
significant interaction among these variables.
There have been some studies on injection
molding variables, analysis, and control, such as
polymer melt temperature, filling rate, and
packing pressure profiles [6], [7], [8], [9].

Figure 1. Injection molding variables
The melt temperature directly influences
polymer viscosity, filling flow rate, filling
pressure, and the cavity pressure–time profile.
The filling rate has a significant impact on the
quality of the part being molded, especially on
the mechanical properties and dimension stability.
Choosing the packing pressure profile optimally
reduces the residual stresses, shrinkage of the
products, and warpage. However, it will increase
product weight. Mold clamping force, calculated
injection volume, injection flow rate, heating
input power, screw rotating speed, maximum
pressure on material, and distance between tie
bars are important items to evaluate the main
characteristics of an injection machine. During
the machine selection, external dimension of the
mold and its projected area are the main factors
to consider. Dimension of the mold influences
the size of machine platens, and the projected
area is used to decide injection pressure and
injection unit size. Other characteristics of the
machine are very much related with the process
condition. which has been chosen to fabricate the
product. The condition of the molding or the
process parameter is very important in plastic
injection molding. The molded part quality in
terms of strength, warpage and residual stress is
affected very much by the condition during the
process. Molding condition also influences
productivity, cycling time, and energy used in the
molding process. There is a close relationship
between molding condition and other factors,
such as the materials, design of the part, and
tooling. They play a role in determining the
plastic product quality. Molding conditions
include the important parameters, [10] which are
melt temperature, mold temperature, filling time,
packing time, and packing pressure.
PIM is an important technique in plastic
manufacturing because it is beneficial in terms of
quality, cost, productivity, and mechanical
properties [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],
[18]. There are four stages in the PIM cycle:
plasticization, injection, packing, and cooling
[14]. In PIM, the quality of the parts is
3
significantly affected by various factors such as
material, mold design, and process parameters
used. Further, as it is expensive and time
consuming, the trial and error method is not
appropriate for such a complex manufacturing
process in order to find the optimum PIM process
parameters [15].
According to Bharti and Khan [19], the main
causes of defects in injection molding are the
design of the mold, the performance of the
injection molding machine (it involves the clamp
unit and a barrel temperature), the quality of
operators, the polypropilene type, and the
working process. In their study, Tang et. al. [20]
found that melt temperature, time, and the
pressure of the packing had a strong influence on
warpage defects. However, filling time was not
shown to have a significant influence on warpage.
Longzhi, Binghui, Jianyun, and Shangbung [21]
conducted a parametric study on melt and mold
temperature, injection time, holding pressure, and
cooling time. The study investigated their
influence on sink mark index in the plastic
injection of mold components. Moldflow
software was used to support the study. By using
a parametric study, the processing condition for
minimum sink marks in an automobile dashboard
cover was optimized. Using design of experiment
(DOE - a branch of applied statistics that deals
with planning, conducting, analyzing, and
interpreting controlled tests to evaluate the
factors that control the value of a parameter or
group of parameters), A. H. Ahmad et al. [22]
investigated the influence of processing
parameters such as packing pressure, packing
time, and melt and mold temperature on defects
in plastic mold parts caused by warpage.
Stanek, Manas, Manas, and Suba [23]
investigated the optimizing injection cycle. In
their study, DOE was used and they observed
defects such as short fills, flashes, sink marks,
hesitation marks, and color-streak marks on
square-piece molding during the optimization
process. They also made the setting parameter
variations in injection machine and packing
pressure, fill time, and cooling time.
Using the Taguchi method (TM), Ozcelik [24]
studied the effects of injection parameters and
weld line on polypropylene (PP) mechanical
properties during plastic-injection molding. In the
study, the optimum pressure of injection, packing
pressure, and melt temperature were determined
to get the maximum mechanical strength in
polypropylene molding (Dow 765-15NA)
material.
Dang [25] identified the characteristics,
advantages, disadvantages, and application scope
 4 Hartono et al. / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.2 Apr. 2020
of all common approaches of optimization, such
as the response surface model, Kriging model,
artificial neural network, genetic algorithms, and
hybrid approaches. The study proposed two
general frameworks for the simulation-based
optimization of injection-molding parameters:
direct and meta-modeling optimization.
According to Bariran and Sahari [26], the TM,
Genetic Algoritm (GA), and RSM were found to
be the three most popular optimization
techniques used in plastic injection molding.
Combined with other heuristic methods, such as
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and GA, TM
was found to be a better optimization tool,
especially in quality of products and the design of
the mold. In terms of the processing parameter,
TM is still considered to be the core optimization
technique.
Wang, Kim, and Song [27] studied the
process parameters of plastic injection molding
(PIM). The study investigated the manufacturing
of a brake booster valve body. They found that in
order to improve the compressive property of the
valve body, optimum PIM process parameters
must apply computer-aided engineering and be
integrated with TM. Parameters in the
optimization consist of the amount and size of
gates, molding temperature, resin temperature,
switch over by volume filled, switch over by
injection pressure and, curving time.
Kusic, Kek, Slabe, Svecko, and Grum [28]
studied the influence of six injection-molding
process parameters on post-molding shrinkage
and parts warping. The warping parts studied
were made of polypropylene filled with calcium
carbonate and had been used in large quantities
throughout the automotive industry. The study
used TM, and Type II of TM quality
characteristic is Nominal is the best. Through a
variance analysis, packing pressure was found to
have the most significant influence to the
specimen. In the study, there was a clear
correlation between the post-molding shrinkage
and warping as a result of AE signals. This result
showed that there was a possibility to monitor the
adequacy of the process online by capturing AE
signals.
In their study, Mohd, Rohani, and Kok Teng
[30] applied “seven basic quality control (QC)
tools” in order to improve monthly defect quality
significantly from 13.49% to 7.4%. However, in
order to make the tools cost effective and to be
able to solve problems, a strong commitment
from top management was required.
Based on these studies, it can be seen that TM
is still dominant in the optimization of the setting
parameters for plastic injection molding [26],
[27], [28], [31], [32], [33].
II. EXPERIMENTAL
A. Materials
Polypropylene (Isofil H 40 C2 F NAT),
obtained from PT. Trias Sentosa Manufacturing
Sidoarjo, and constituting 40% calcium carbonate,
was the polymer material used in the experiment.
The material is quite popular owing to its
cheapness and appropriate for use in any
application and is quite commonly used in
manufacturing products in the automotive
industry: dashboard components, fans, ductwork,
among others [34]. Since the material was stored
properly, there was no need for drying it.
Polypropylene’s properties are presented in Table
1.
Table 1.
Properties of polypropylene
Physical properties Value
Tensile strength 0.95 - 1.30 N/mm2
Notched impact strength 3.0 - 30.0 Kj/m2
Thermal coefficient of expansion 100 - 150 x 10-6
Max. continued use temperature 80 oC (176 oF)
Melting point 160 oC (320 oF)
Glass transition temp. (atactic) -20 oC (-4 oF)
Glass transition temp. (isotactic) 100 oC (212 oF)
Density 0.905 g/cm3
B. Mold and Injection Machine
Several experiments were conducted on the
Maya Jieli injection molding machine, which had
a diameter of 40 mm and a screw and maximal
clamping force of 800 kN. A test mold with one
cavity insert for the injection molding was used
with standard D2 ISO test specimens [29] having
square dimensions of 60 mm _ 60 mm (length _
width) and a thickness of 2 mm, which can be
used for a variety of tests according to ISO 294-3
(Figure 1). The cold runner had a diameter, a
typical value, of 7 mm. Fully round sprues and
cold runners (modified trapezoidal type), as they
are recommended for PP materials, were used in
the study. The mold had a film-type gate
commonly used for straight edges. The distance
between the pressure sensor and the gate was
approximately 5 mm. To avoid sharp corners of
the specimen, a small curves was made;
moreover, this prevents stress concentration
within those areas and, in turn, prohibit the part
from having significant differential shrinkage and
warping and failing under a heavy load. Also,
toolmakers tend to avoid problematic corners
since they do not possess special machines to
create them.
 5

where 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 each declares the

C. Experimental Design and Statistical actual value of the temperature variable injection,
Analysis injection pressure, injection speed percentage,
A full quadratic polynomial regression model clamping force and retention time. Based on the
was expected to express for the presumed equation (2), the values of the coding for the
responses. In order to minimize the unexpected variable x are presented in Table 3. The Analysis
variability effects in the observed response of Variance (ANOVA), the coefficient of
caused by extraneous matter, all experiments multiples determination, and R2 were applied to
were carried out in a randomized order [13]. The analyze the adequacy of the quadratic polynomial
model for each response of Y is: model to determine the model significance.
Y = A + B + C + D + E + A2 + B2 + C2 + D2 Besides that, the relationship between response
+ E2 + AB + AC + AD + AE + BC + BD + BE + and experimental levels of each factor can be
CD + CE + DE (1) visualized. Through quadratic equation, optimum
condition of the process could be deduced. The
where Y is the presumed response variables: fitted quadratic polynomial equation can be
Probability of Defect. The proposed model presented as the surface plot or contour plot.
equation predicts the response as a function of
the different levels of independent variables Table 2.
which are A, B, C, D and E. The significance of Processing factors of experimental design
each coefficient of the model was found by using Factor Factor levels
Factor
the F-test and p value. name (-1) (+1)
A central composite design is an experimental A Nozzle 230 C 275 C
design which is used in response surface method temperature
B Injection 66 bar 115 bar
(response surface). In response surface method, pressure
the central composite design is used to build the C Injection 95 % 99 %
model (polynomial) a mathematical function of speed
the independent variables (X1, X2, X3 ... Xn) the D Clamping 55 ton 75 ton
response (y) is formed. Central composite design force
E Holding 5s 8s
consists of a factorial or fractional factorial time
design with center point.
The center point is the point where all the Table 3.
variables are set at the middle value of the data. The response surface methodology experiment level code
By using Central composite design, we can save Code level -2.3782 -1 0 1 2.3782
run experiments because of the observational X1 198.99 230 252.5 275 306.01
data required to make the model much less, X2 32.23 66 90.5 115 148.77
without any loss of information about main X3 92.24 95 97 99 101.76
effects. It is also because central composite X4 41.22 55 65 75 88.78
design is a design that is very effective and X5 2.93 5 6.5 8 10.07
efficient way to estimate the first order and
second order. III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In the model the response variable Curventure
by adding central and axial points to the previous A. Model Fitting
factorial design. Levels of experiments on each Plastic experiments were performed by
of the independent variables are coded such that making flower pot products with a bottom
the lower level associated with a high level -1 diameter of 135 mm and top diameter of 195 mm.
and relate with one to simplify the calculation. The materials used were Polypropylene material
CCD design in phase II experiments used five (PP). Machine used was a plastic molding
independent variables, so the value rotabillity = machine branded Maya Jieli MJM-JLB198-HQ
(25) 1/4 = 2.37822. Therefore, the value of ± with a capacity of 200 Tons. From the results of
2.37822 includes the value used in the encoding. the Central Composite experimental design used,
Encoding independent variables were it looked that almost all of these factors had a
calculated using the equations: significant influence. The model approaches were
full quadratic models which meant to include
linear models and their interactions. In the linear
model, the injection speed and time factors
(2) showed retaining significant influence, whereas
the quadratic model injection pressure, injection
 6 Hartono et al. / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.2 Apr. 2020
temperature, injection speed and retention time
also had a significant influence. Besides, in the
interaction of two factors, the interaction effect of
the injection pressure and injection temperature
also had a significant influence. The results are
the recorded observations of each product either
with the senses or by means of a magnifying
glass to detect defects in the product. The
proportion of defects was calculated by
comparing the number of defective products for
every 10 performed replicates for the types of
defects that arised among others in the form of
bubbles, the dimensions of which did not match,
a hole and other small defects.
Figure 2. The product of PIM: The flower pot
Regression Equation in Uncoded Units:
PROBABILITY OF DEFECT = 167.0 -
0.1774 X1 – 0.21102 X2 - 2.739 X3 + 0.00814
X4 - 0.2075 X5 +0.000227 X1*X1 + 0.000191
X2 *X2 + 0.01396 X3*X3 + 0.02089 X5*X5 +
0.000699 X1*X2 - 0.00153 X4*X5 (3)
Table 4. Anova table and model summary
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
0.151756 85.74% 84.65% 81.60%
From the table and graph above, it is shown
that all parameters have a significant effect on the
response of minimizing product defects except
the influence of linear temperature injection,
injection pressure and clamping force. These
three parameters give a significant quadratic
effect on the response. The significance of linear
influence only looks at the holding time and the
speed of injection. Herein lies the uniqueness of
this study because of the quadratic function will
appear easily when and where to do the
optimization measures. For the interaction
between the clamping force and holding time, the
influence is not significant.
From the R2 results, it appears that the models
applied to predict the effects of injection
temperature, injection pressure, injection speed,
clamping force and a holding time give effect of
85.74% of the response in the form of
minimizing defects. This is a very significant
influence on the response. While 14:26% is
caused by other factors such as errors or other
causes.
B. Linear Model
From the graph in Figure 3, it appears that all
five factors controlled the objects that are being
studied. Only the clamping force is not in
quadratic form, but in linear form. While on the
other four control factors, it seems that there is an
optimal point to achieve the minimal
probabilities of product defects.
Figure 3. Linear model
In a linear model, injection speed and holding
time have a significant effect on minimizing the
defect response variable. This means that both
factors have a linear influence on the response
variable. This can be explained by the fact that
these two variables (injection speed and holding
time) have a direct effect on the incidence of
product defects when the percentage of injection
speed and holding time plus can reduce the
probability of defective products. The three other
factors (temperature injection, injection pressure,
and clamping force) do not have a linear effect on
the response variable.
C. Quadratic and Interaction Model
On the quadratic model (square), the
temperature injection, injection pressure,
injection speed, and holding time have significant
effects on the response variable. This can be seen
in Table 4 with a significant P-value of 0.000,
which is smaller than alpha 5%. This means that
four factors may also significantly influence the
reduction of the probabilities of a defective
product.
In the interaction between the injection
pressure and injection temperature, it appears that
the interaction of both results in a minimal
probability of defective products at a position
above and below 240C –275C and position of
injection pressure below 60 bar and above 115
bar.

Figure 4. Surface plot and contour plot of interaction
injection pressure and inj. temperature
In the interaction between injection pressure
and holding time, it appears that the interaction of
both gives minimal results for the probability of
defects when the injection pressure is between
70–90 tons and the holding time is between 6.5–8
seconds.
Figure 5. Surface plot and contour plot of interaction
clamping force and holding time
In Figure 6, it appears that the probability of
the interaction between the holding time and the
injection speed resulting in a defective product is
minimal given an injection speed of between
97% and 99% and a holding time of 6–8 seconds.
Figure 6. Surface plot and contour plot of interaction
holding time and injection speed
Figure 7. Surface plot and contour plot of interaction
clamping force and injection pressure
D. Prediction and Optimization Model
From the results of the forecast model or
prediction model on the optimization of design
parameters, it appears that the relational equation
model-controlled parameters, such as injection
temperature, injection pressure, injection speed
and holding time, results in a relatively large
coefficient of the responses to generate
minimizing product defects. The optimal solution
is given on the composition of an injection
temperature of 275oC, pressure injection 75 bar,
injection speed 98%, clamping force 88 tons and
7
holding time 8 seconds to generate a reduction of
probability product defects by 0.0062.
Figure 8. Optimization plot
IV. CONCLUSION
Central composite design (CCD) from
response surface methodology was successfully
conducted for the forecasting model on the
characterization and optimization of controlled
factors for the polypropylene plastic injection
molding for minimizing defects with central
composite design. The results are in the form of a
combination of factors, among them the level of
control and the interaction among the factors that
generate robust output of plastic products and
minimal defects. The optimal setting of
parameters provides a global solution at
injection: temperature 275oC, injection pressure
75 bar, injection speed 98%, clamping force 88
tons and holding time 8 s. The benefit is that it
can reveal how the behavior and the
characteristics of parameter design and their
interaction in the process of PIM produces
quality plastics and minimizes product defects.
AKNOWLEDGMENT
Thank you to the Directorate of Higher
Education Ministry of Education and Culture for
the financial assistance provided so that this
research can be carried out, also to Brawijaya
University and Malang State Polytechnic who
have given me the opportunity to study and our
promoters who have guided my dissertation.
REFERENCES
[1] SCHEY, J.A. (2000) Introduction to
Manufacturing Processes. 1st ed. Ontario:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
[2] RUCINSKY, P. (2002)
Manufacturing Solutions for the Automation,
Control, and Monitoring of the Injection
Molding Process. SPE IMD Newsletter, 59,
582.
[3] EL WAKIL, S.D. (1998) Processes
and Design for Manufacturing. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[4] ALTAN, T. and LILLY, B. (2001)
Design and manufacturing of dies and
 8 Hartono et al. / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.2 Apr. 2020
molds—recent advances. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference and
Exhibition on Design and Production of Dies
and Molds,Kusadasi, June 2001.
[5] POTSCH, G. and MICHAELI, W.
(1995) Injection Moulding: An Introduction.
Munich: Hanser Publication.
[6] HUANG, S.N., TAN, K.K., and LEE,
T.H. (1999) Adaptive GPC control of melt
temperature in injection moulding. ISA
Transactions, 38 (4), pp. 361-373.
[7] YANG, Y. and GAO, F. (2000)
Adaptative control of the filling velocity of
thermoplastics injection molding. Control
Engineering Practice, 8, pp. 1285-1296.
[8] HAN, K.-H. and IM, Y.-T. (1997)
Compressible flow analysis of filling and
postfilling in injection molding with phase-
change effect. Composite Structures, 38 (1-
4), pp. 179-190.
[9] CHOI, D.-S. and IM, Y.-T. (1999)
Prediction of shrinkage and warpage in
consideration of residual stress in integrated
simulation of injection molding. Composite
Structures, 47 (1-4), pp. 655-665.
[10] SHOEMAKER, J. (2006) Moldflow
Design Guide: A Resource for Plastic
Engineers. Munchen: Hanser Verlage.
[11] CHEN, W.C., FU, G.L., TAI, P.H., and
DENG, W.J. (2009) Process parameter
optimization for MIMO plastic injection
molding via soft computing. Expert Systems
with Applications, 36, pp. 1114-1122.
[12] KHONDKER, O.A., YANG, X., USUI,
N., and HAMADA, H. (2006) Mechanical
properties of textile inserted PP/PP knitted
composites using injection-compression
molding. Composites Part A: Applied
Science and Manufacturing, 37, pp. 2285-
2299.
[13] KUO, P.Y., WANG, S.Y., CHEN, J.H.,
HSUEH, H.C., and TSAI, M.J. (2009)
Effects of material compositions on the
mechanical properties of wood-plastic
composites manufactured by injection
molding. Materials and Design, 30, pp.
3489-3496.
[14] CHRIS, M.S., ALAN, A.D., and
GEORGE, F.L. (1994) Multi objective
optimization of a plastic injection molding
process. IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, 2, pp. 157-168.
[15] LAM, Y.C., ZHAI, L.Y., TAI, K., and
FOK, S.C. (2004) An evolutionary approach
for cooling system optimization in plastic
injection moulding. International Journal of
Production Research, 42, pp. 2047-2061.
[16] KEVIN, A. and MUSA, R.K. (2005) A
robust optimization of injection molding
runner balancing. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 29, pp. 1934-1944.
[17] HASAN, O., TUNCAY, E., and
FEHMI, E. (2006) Prediction of minimum
surface roughness in end milling mold parts
using neural network and genetic algorithm.
Materials and Design, 27, pp. 735-744.
[18] SHIE, J. (2008) Optimization of
injection-molding process for mechanical
properties of polypropylene components via
a generalized regression neural network.
Polymers for Advanced Technologies, 19, pp.
73-83.
[19] BHARTI, P.K. and KHAN, M.I. (2010)
Recent methods for optimization of plastic
injection molding process – A retrospective
and literature review. International Journal
of Engineering Science and Technology, 2
(9), pp. 4540-4554.
[20] TANG, S.H., TAN, Y.J., SAPUAN,
S.M., SULAIMAN, S., ISMAIL, N., and
SAMIN, R. (2007) The use of Taguchi
method in the design of plastic injection
mould for reducing warpage. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 182 (1-3),
pp. 418-426.
[21] LONGZHI, Z., BINGHUI, C.,
JIANYUN, L., and SHANGBING, Z. (2010)
Optimization of plastics injection molding
processing parameters based on the
minimization of sink marks. In: Proceedings
of the International Conference on Mechanic
Automation and Control Engineering,
Wuhan, June 2010. Piscataway, New Jersey:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, pp. 593-595.
[22] AHMAD, A.H., LEMAN, Z., AZMIR,
M.A., MUHAMAD, K.F., HARUN, W.S.W.,
JULIAWATI, A., and ALIAS, A.B.S. (2009)
Optimization of warpage defect in injection
moulding process using ABS material. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd Asia International
Conference on Modelling and Simulation,
Bali, May 2009. Piscataway, New Jersey:

Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, pp. 470-474.
[23] STANEK, M., MANAS, D., MANAS,
M., and SUBA, O. (2011) Optimization of
Injection Molding Process. International
Journal of Mathematics and Computers in
Simulation, 5 (5), pp. 413-421.
[24] OZCELIK, B. (2011) Optimization of
injection parameters for mechanical
properties of specimens with weld line of
polypropylene using Taguchi method.
International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer, 38 (8), pp. 1067-1072.
[25] DANG, X.P. (2014) General
frameworks for optimization of plastic
injection molding process parameters.
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,
41, pp. 15-27.
[26] BARIRAN, S.E.S. and SAHARI,
K.S.M. (2014) A Comparative Bibilometric
Analysis of Taguchi-Centered Optimization
in Plastic Injection Moulding. Jurnal
Teknologi, 68 (4), pp. 69-75.
[27] WANG, Y.-Q., KIM, J.-G., and SONG,
J.-I. (2014) Optimization of plastic injection
molding process parameters
manufacturing a brake booster valve body.
Materials and Design, 56, pp. 313-317.
[28] KUSIC, D., KEK, T., SLABE, J.M.,
SVECKO, R., and GRUM, J. (2013) The
impact of process parameters on test
specimen deviations and their correlation
with AE signals captured during the injection
moulding cycle. Polymer Testing, 32, pp.
583-593.
[29] HUANG, M.-S. and LIN, T.-Y. (2008)
Simulation of a regression-model and PCA
based searching method developed for setting
the robust injection molding parameters of
multi-quality characteristics. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 51 (25-
26), pp. 5828-5837.
[30] ROHANI, J.M. and CHAN, K.T. (2001)
Improving Quality with Basic Statistical
Process Control (SPC) Tools: A Case Study.
Jurnal Teknologi, 35(A), pp. 21-34.
[31] CHEN, W.-C., TAI, P.-H., WANG, M.-
W., DENG, W.-J., and CHEN, C.-T. (2008)
A neural network-based approach for
dynamic quality prediction in a plastic
injection molding process. Expert Systems
with Applications, 35 (3), pp. 843-849.
9
[32] OKTEM, H., ERZURUMLU, T., and
UZMAN, I. (2007) Application of Taguchi
optimization technique in determining plastic
injection molding process parameters for a
thin-shell part. Materials and Design, 28, pp.
1271-1278.
[33] HUSSIN, R., SAAD, R.M., HUSSIN,
R., and DAWI, M.S.I.M. (2012) An
Optimization of Plastic Injection Molding
Parameters Using Taguchi Optimization
Method. Asian Transactions on Engineering,
2, pp. 75-80.
[34] TRIPATHI, D. (2002) Practical Guide
to Polypropylene. Shrewsbury: Rapra
Technology Limited.
参考文:
[1] SCHEY，J.A。（2000）制造过程简介。
第一版。安大略省：麦格劳-希尔公司，
公司.
[2] RUCINSKY，P.（2002）注塑过程自
动化，控制和监视的制造解决方案。固相
萃取通讯，59，582。
for
[3] EL WAKIL，S.D。（1998）制造过程
与设计。新泽西州恩格尔伍德悬崖：普伦
蒂斯厅。
[4] ALTAN，T. 和 LILLY，B.（2001）模
具的设计和制造-最新进展。于：2001 年 6
月在库萨达斯举行的第二届国际模具设计
和生产国际会议和展览的论文集。
[5] POTSCH ， G. 和 MICHAELI ， W.
（1995）注射成型：简介。慕尼黑：汉瑟
出版社。
[6] HUANG S.N.，TAN K.K., 和 LEE T.H.
（1999）注射成型中熔体温度的自适 应
GPC 控制。伊萨交易，38（4），第 361-
373 页。
[7] YANG，Y。和 GAO，F.（2000）热塑
性塑料注射成型填充速度的自适应控制。
控制工程实践，8，第 1285-1296 页。
[8] 韩，K.-H。和 IM，Y.-T.（1997）具有
相变效应的注模中填充和后填充的可压缩
流 动 分 析 。 复 合 结 构 ， 38 （ 1-4 ） ， 第
179-190 页。
[9] 崔 D.-S. 和 IM，Y.-T.（1999）在注塑
成型的集成模拟中考虑残余应力的收缩和
 10 Hartono et al. / Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University / Vol.55 No.2 Apr. 2020

翘 曲 预 测 。 复 合 结 构 ， 47 （ 1-4 ） ， 第 SAMIN，R.（2007）在塑料注射模设计中
655-665 页。 使用田口方法来减少翘曲。材料加工技术，
[10] SHOEMAKER，J.（2006）流动设计 182（1-3），第 418-426 页。
指南：塑料工程师的资源。慕尼黑：汉瑟 [21] LONGZI ， Z. ， BINGHUI ， C. ，
·韦拉格。 JIANYUN ， L., 和 SHANGBING ， Z.
[11] CHEN，W.C.，FU，G.L.，TAI，P.H. （2010）基于缩痕最小化的塑料注射成型
和 DENG，W.J.（2009）通过软计算优化 工艺参数的优化。在：机械自动化与控制
多输入多输出塑料注射成型的工艺参数。 工程国际会议论文集，武汉，2010 年 6 月。
专家系统及其应用，36，第 1114-1122 页。 新泽西州皮斯卡塔维：电气与电子工程师
[12] KHONDKER ，O.A. ，YANG， X. ， 协会，第 593-595 页。
USUI，N., 和 HAMADA，H.（2006）使 [22] AHMAD ， A.H. ， LEMAN ， Z. ，
用注塑成型法将纺织品插入的聚丙烯/聚丙 AZMIR ， M.A. ， MUHAMAD ， K.F. ，
烯针织复合材料的机械性能。复合材料一 HARUN ， W.S.W. ， JULIAWATI ， A. 和
种部分：应用科学与制造，37，第 2285- ALIAS，A.B.S.（2009）使用 ABS 材料优
2299 页。 化注塑过程中的翘曲缺陷。在：第三届亚
[13] KUO，P.Y.，WANG，S.Y.，CHEN， 洲建模与仿真国际会议论文集，2009 年 5
J.H. ， HSUEH ， H.C., 和 TSAI ， M.J. 月，巴厘岛。新泽西州皮斯卡塔维：电气
（2009）材料组成对注塑成型木塑复合材 与电子工程师协会，第 470-474 页。
料力学性能的影响。材料与设计，30，第 [23] STANEK ， M. ， MANAS ， D. ，
3489-3496 页。 MANAS，M., 和 SUBA，O.（2011）注塑
[14] 密西西比州的克里斯（CHRIS），亚 工艺的优化。国际数学与模拟计算机杂志，
特 兰 大 （ ALAN ） 和 佛 罗 里 达 州 乔 治 5（5），第 413-421 页。
（1994）塑料注射成型工艺的多目标优化。 [24] OZCELIK，B.（2011）使用田口方法
电气工程师学会控制系统技术学报，2， 优化聚丙烯熔合线试样的力学性能的注射
第 157-168 页。 参 数 。 国 际 传 热 与 传 质 ， 38 （ 8 ） ， 第
[15] LAM，Y.C.，ZHAI，L.Y.，TAI，K. 1067-1072 页。
和 FOK，S.C.（2004）一种用于注塑成型 [25] 党，X.P。（2014）优化塑料注射成
冷却系统优化的进化方法。国际生产研究 型工艺参数的通用框架。仿真建模实践与
杂志，42，第 2047-2061 页。 理论，41，第 15-27 页。
[16] A. KEVIN 和 R.K. MUSA（2005）注 [26] BARIRAN ， S.E.S 。 和 SAHARI ，
塑流道平衡的强大优化。计算机与化学工 K.S.M. （ 2014 ） 在 塑 料 注 射 成 型 中 以
程，29，第 1934-1944 页。 Taguchi 为中心的优化的比较比重分析。
[17] HASAN ， O. ， TUNCAY ， E., 和 法律杂志，68（4），第 69-75 页。
FEHMI，E.（2006）使用神经网络和遗传 [27] 王 永 奎 ， KIM J.-G., 和 宋 健 一 。
算法预测立铣模具零件的最小表面粗糙度。 （2014）优化用于制造制动助力器阀体的
材料与设计，27，第 735-744 页。 塑料注射成型工艺参数。材料与设计，56，
[18] SHIE，J.（2008）通过通用回归神经 第 313-317 页。
网络优化聚丙烯组分机械性能的注塑工艺。 [28] KUSIC ， D. ， KEK ， T. ， SLABE ，
先进技术的聚合物，19，第 73-83 页。 J.M ， SVECKO ， R., 和 GRUM ， J.
[19] BHARTI ， P.K 。 还 有 M.I. KHAN （2013）工艺参数对试样偏差的影响及其
（2010）优化塑料注射成型工艺的最新方 与注塑成型过程中捕获的自动曝光信号的
法–回顾与文献综述。国际工程科学与技 相关性周期。聚合物测试，32，第 583-
术杂志，2（9），第 4540-4554 页。 593 页。
[20] TANG，S.H.，TAN，Y.J.，SAPUAN， [29] HUANG，M.-S.和 LIN T.-Y.（2008）
S.M.，SULAIMAN，S.，ISMAIL，N., 和 仿真回归模型和基于 PCA 的搜索方法，
 11

该方法用于设置多种特性的鲁棒注射成型
参数。国际热质交换杂志，51（25-26），
第 5828-5837 页。
[30] ROHANI， J.M 。和 CHAN，K.T。
（2001）使用基本统计过程控制（SPC）
工具提高质量：案例研究。法律杂志，35
（一种），第 21-34 页。
[31] 陈文超，太极华辉，王明华，邓文杰，
陈国泰。（2008）一种基于神经网络的方
法，用于在塑料注射成型过程中进行动态
质量预测。专家系统的应用，35（3），
第 843-849 页。
[32] OKTEM，H.，ERZURUMLU，T., 和
UZMAN，I.（2007）田口优化技术在确定
薄壳零件的塑料注射成型工艺参数中的应
用。材料与设计，28，第 1271-1278 页。
[33] R. HUSSIN，SA.R.M.，R。HUSSIN
和 M.S.I.M. DAWI。（2012）使用田口优
化方法优化塑料注射成型参数。亚洲工程
学报，2，第 75-80 页。
[34] TRIPATHI，D.（2002）聚丙烯实用
指南。什鲁斯伯里：雷普科技有限公司。