Professional Documents
Culture Documents
D e p a r t m e n t of Mechanical Engineering
University of Maryland
College P a r k , M a r y l a n d 20742
The quality of a n injection molded part is affected by many factors. These
include geometric parameters associated with the mold design and the cooling
system design as well a s process parameters such as the molding conditions
during the filling phase. In the companion paper, the problem of automatic
optimization of gate location was addressed. In this paper, a methodology for
molding condition optimization is presented. The optimization problem can be
broken into three parts. A n approximate feasible molding space (AFMS) is first
determined to constrain the search space for the optimization algorithm. Quality
is quantified a s a function of flow simulation outputs and constitutes the objective
function that must be minimized. The resulting optimization is solved by iterative
search in the constrained space based on numerical optimization algorithms. The
proposed methodology is not dependent on any particular simulation package and
may be applied for any thermoplastic material and any complex mold geometry.
INTRODUCTION
883
Lj = N j * D
(2)
Pseudoflow Algorithm
- AT,
Q = 8.rrH/(t(R2- DF))
(4)
+ 2Qt/(rHDF))
Po = (3Qp/8aH3)ln(l
(5)
(61
where p is the viscosity and A, B, and C are experimentally determined constants. is the shear rate
and T is the melt temperature, which can be defined
as
T = T,,,
- klek2'
+ Tfrrc
(7)
temperatures below 235C a r e considered unacceptable. On the other hand, to achieve a reasonably
uniform temperature distribution throughout the
cavity, the final temperature should not be more than
5 K higher t h a n the temperature entering the cavity,
and not less t h a n 20K below the temperature entering the cavity.
A last consideration is the maximum shear stress
level, which may not exceed the maximum allowable
stress for that particular material. Two boundary
molding conditions are shown here:
mold temp. = 60"C, melt temp. = 240C.
1.5 s 5 fill time 5 2.5 s.
The results for the other combinations of minimum
and maximum mold temperature with minimum and
maximum melt temperature are shown in Tables 2,
3, and 4. By the end of the process, eight boundary
molding conditions can be obtained as shown in
Table 5.
Table 2. Mold Temperature = 90C and Melt Temperature =
240OC for Nylon 6.
Fill Time
(s)
Pressure
(MPa)
Shear Stress
(MW
Temperature
("C)
0.20
0.30
0.50
0.70
1.oo
'1 5 0
'2.00
'2.50
3.00
38.60
32.50
26.20
22.70
19.60
16.80
15.30
14.50
14.70
1.239
1.019
0.798
0.679
0.574
0.474
0.415
0.374
0.344
256.0
253.0
249.0
247.0
244.0
241.O
238.0
236.0
234.0
Pressure
(MPa)
Shear Stress
(MPa)
Temperature
("C)
0.70
1.oo
*1.50
'2.00
*2.50
'3.00
21.70
18.70
15.90
14.20
13.30
12.70
0.642
0.542
0.448
0.391
0.353
0.325
247
244
241
239
237
235
Pressure
(MPa)
Shear Stress
(MW
Temperature
("C)
0.30
*0.50
"0.70
*1.oo
'1.50
"2.00
*2.50
*3.00
5.00
18.20
14.40
12.30
10.50
8.80
7.80
7.10
6.60
5.40
0.509
0.399
0.340
0.287
0.237
0.207
0.187
0.172
0.136
286
284
282
279
276
273
270
268
258
(9
Fill Time
(9
Pressure
(MPa)
Shear Stress
(MW
Temperature
("C)
0.30
*0.50
*0.70
'1 .oo
'1.50
'2.00
'2.50
*3.00
'5.00
7.00
17.90
14.20
12.20
10.30
8.60
7.60
6.90
6.40
5.30
4.70
0.502
0.393
0.335
0.283
0.234
0.204
0.184
0.169
0.134
0.115
286
284
282
280
277
274
272
270
261
253
885
6O.(rnin)
6O.(rnin)
90.(rnax)
90 .(rnax)
6O.(rnin)
60.(rnin)
90.(rnax)
90.(rnax)
240.(rnin)
240.(rnin)
240.(rnin)
240.(rnin)
280.(rnax)
280.(rnax)
280.(rnax)
280.(rnax)
1.5O(rnin)
2.50(rnax)
1.50(min)
3.00(rnax)
0.50(rnin)
3.00(rnax)
0.50(rnin)
5 .OO(rnax)
va
(10)
Trnelt n u n 5 TmeIt
(11)
Tmelt mnx
+ CITmold + ~2Tmelt+ c3 5 0
t m a x + C4Tmold + CSTmelt + CgTmelt 5 0
tmm + dlTmoid + dPTmplt + d3 5 0
t m , n + d4Trriold + dsTmelt + d g 5 0
tnmx
1;;;
s'rm"I"
rnax
Tmola.mm
(12)
(13)
114)
(15)
where T m o l d mand
l n Tmoldrnax
are the minimum and
maximum mold temperatures respectively, Tmelr
m,n
and TmeltmaX
are the minimum and maximum melt
temperatures respectively, and c,, d , are coefficients
determined by the eight boundary points,
The selection of appropriate initial molding conditions for the optimization program is important, since
a poor selection could lead to a local rather t h a n a
global optimum solution. I t is preferable that these
parameters are given by a molding expert. When this
information is not provided, default values for the
initial molding conditions are chosen automatically
as the center of the approximate feasible molding
space.
sTrneu r
dTmeltdTmolddt.
(16)
Trne~tmm
+ PNmp +
(17)
subject to:
dO.(rnin)
80.(rnin)
11O.(rnax)
11O.(rnax)
80.(min)
80.(rnin)
1 1O.(rnax)
11O.(rnax)
270.(rnin)
270.(min)
270.(rnin)
270.(rnin)
320 .(rnax)
320.(rnax)
320.(rnax)
320.(rnax)
1.OO(rnin)
3.00(rnax)
1 .OO(rnin)
5.00(rnax)
O.PO(rnin)
5 .OO(rnax)
0.20(rnin)
5.00(rnax)
NYLON 6
'
E
L
T
300
300
280+
240..
220..
(C)
i
E
L
308..
T
E
28B,,
280,.
T 240-.
E
220..
P
(C)
T 240..
E
320..
-I
T 280+
T 280
E
260
P
(C
T 3@0
260-.
'I
320
T 380.,
220..
(C 1
(C)
280..
L
T 268..
2'60..
320..
300
T 260,.
260-,
E
P
P
(C
4-
:-+
'
for the maximum injection pressure, maximum allowable shear stress, and temperature difference respectively. Equation 18 is called side constraints.
Xt(i = 1 , 2, 3 ) are the lowest allowable mold temperature, melt temperature, a n d fill time, and X p ( i = 1 ,
2, 3 ) are the highest allowable mold temperature,
melt temperature, and fill time respectively.
The augmented Lagrange multiplier (ALM) method
is used to modify the constrained problem into a n
unconstrained problem first (see Appendix A). Next
the pseudo objective function %(X)created by ALM is
minimized based on the sequential unconstrained
minimization technique (SUMT). This method will be
presented next.
VF(X*) = 0
(22)
887
where
defined as
S" = -V@(X")
+ PnS"-l
(26)
I 8x3 J
and that the Hessian matrix, H ( X ) at X" is positive
definite. X" is a global optimum design, if and only if
F@*) = 0 and H ( X ) is positive definite for all X. In
other words, X* ensures the design to be a global
optimum only when the F ( X )is convex. In most cases
in molding condition optimization, F ( X )is not convex
and, therefore, the identified minimum is not guaranteed to be the global optimum.
A s discussed before, to solve unconstrained optimization problems requires finding a vector X" such
that the gradient of the objective function F(X*) becomes zero. However, it is almost impossible to infer
X* directly by solving the equation VF(X) = 0 since
VF(X) may be a highly nonlinear function. In the case
of molding condition optimization, the objective function F ( X ) is a function of a flow simulation outputs,
so we do not even have an explicit form for F ( X ) .
Therefore, instead of solving VF(X) directly, F ( X ) is
minimized by an iteration procedure. Beginning with
an initial design vector Xo, a new design vector X' is
chosen in some way, which will give a lower value of
(X').The search iterations for this type of unconstrained problem can be defined as follows:
X""
= 2("
+ (YS"
(24)
where n is the iteration number, S is a vector representing the search direction in the design space, and
(Y is a scalar number that represents the distance to
move in the S direction.
It can be seen that this optimization algorithm can
be divided into two basic parts. One is finding a
search direction, S , among which the objective function will be minimized. Another is finding the scalar
number 01" that defines a proper distance of moving
in direction S.
= V@(X"-') -V@(X"-l).
V@(X)=
Iax3 J
where
(33)
(31)
and X1 is the mold temperature, X, is the melt temperature, and Xs is the fill time.
Theoretically, AX should be very small. However,
the flow simulation package is not sensitive to small
changes in mold temperature and melt temperature.
AX, and AXz are chosen to equal ZK, and AX3 is equal
to 0.015 (s)after running several cases to test the
sensitivity of mold temperature, melt temperature,
and fill time. Because the flow simulation package is
much more sensitive to fill time than to mold temperature and melt temperature, it is necessary to
make a small modification in the search direction.
The search direction is defined as
s o = -O*(XO).
AX3
V@'(x)is defined as
three unknowns:
a.
(35)
+ al + a2 = $*(1)
+ 4al + 16a2 = @*(4).
a.
If S".V@'(Xn)
2 0, it implies that the search direction
S" can not improve the objective function any more.
Therefore, it should be set equal to -V+(X") again.
The conjugate direction method algorithm can be
defined a s follows:
a.
F(X + as).
The optimum a
a* satisfies
(37)
+ a l a + a2a2.
a2
(40)
(41)
(42)
- 4@*(1)
@*(4)
12
(43)
(44)
--a1
2a2
(45)
Convergence
It is very important to set appropriate criteria for
terminating the search, since the efficiency and reliability of the optimization process are greatly affected by these considerations. To ensure that the
optimization process is stable, several termination
criteria are used in our optimization process.
Maximum Number of Iterations
(46)
(38)
= 9*(0)
4
1
al = -@*(l)
- @*(O) + -aJ*(4)
3
12
x+
(39)
1 . Choose Xo.
2. go+ X,V F = VF(X). a = VF.VF.
3. -VF + SF.
4. Call subroutine to find p* which minimizes
F(X + a*S).
5. If p = 0 then stop, else go to 6.
a*s-+ 15.
6.
a
7. VF(X) + VF, V F . V F + b, y = -.
b
(ISn-' + S", b + a, S " . V F + Slope.
8. -Vf
9. If Slope 2 0 then go to 3, else go to 10.
10. Call subroutine to find a to minimize
= cP*(O)
889
The optimum gate location obtained from gate location optimization was used as the injection gate. The
material used was the same as in gate location optimization (Nylon 6). The results under these initial
molding conditions are shown in Table 7.
The constraints were set as follows:
7OoC 5 mold temperature 5 100.OC,
270,O"C Imelt temperature I310.0"C
1.00 s Ifill time 5 3.00 s,
temperature difference 5 20K,
maximum pressure 5 100 MPa,
maximum shear stress I5.00 X lo5 Pa.
The optimization process converged in 20 iterations. The optimum molding conditions were:
mold temperature, 98C.
melt temperature, 290.35"C,
fill time, 1.33 s.
Under the optimum molding conditions, the results
are shown in Table 8.
A comparison of the results is shown in Table 9
where it can be seen that temperature h a s been
reduced by 19.0%,the number of overpacked elements h a s been reduced by 5.9%. the number of
frictional overheated elements h a s been increased by
22.9%, maximum pressure h a s been increased by
3.5%.and maximum shear stress h a s been increased
by 1.9%. The most critical factor. namely the temperature difference (Td!B)r
was reduced by 19.0%.The
other factors were not very important in this case, so
their variation did not contribute significantly to the
objective function.
F(X)
POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATION
Temperature difference
Overpack elements
Friction heating elements
Maximum pressure
Maximum shear stress
node 460
100
22.6 K
1.7%
7.4%
22.3 MPa
0.46 MPa
x-x+B's
S- - V O + BS
F(X)
Temperature difference
Overpack elements
Friction heating elements
Maximum pressure
Maximum shear stress
node 460
37.80
18.3 K
1.6%
9.6%
23.1 MPa
0.48 MPa
F(X)
100
Temperature difference 22.6 K
Overpack elements
1.7%
Friction heating elements 7.4%
Maximum shear stress
0.53 MPa
890
37.80
18.3 K
1.6%
9.6%
0.54 MPa
62.2%
19.0%
5.9%
-22.9%
-1.9%
We successfully developed a system that can automatically optimize molding conditions by using the
results of flow simulation. The results of our optimization system have been successfully applied to
complex industrial molds. The conjugate direction
method and ALM penalty function method are suited
to our optimization of molding conditions. Since the
objective function to be minimized is highly nonlinear, molding conditions obtained from our optimization program are not guaranteed to be the global
optimum. The molding conditions therefore should
be used under supervision of a n injection molding
expert to ensure that the results are reasonable.
If a penalty function is created by augmented Lagrange multiplier (10). the pseudo objective function
h a s the following term:
rn
a. r,) =
+ k=c [ a k + m h k ( X ) + rph2(X)1
1
W3
rp) = F(X)+ rpP(X)
(48)
F(X)
(49)
subject to:
g,(X) 5 0 j
hk(X)=
., rn
(50)
k = 1, ., l
(51)
= 1,
X + s x , ~ x , Ui =
1, . , n
(52)
(53)
+ &El
aJVd(X)
aj L
0.
2rphk+rn(X)Vhk+m(X)
VF(X) -C
(Yk,
we
rn
C
,=I
aJVdj(X) +
C
k=
azvhk+rn(X)
(56)
= Yrp
a, = aJ + 2r,rnax[g,(X),- a,/r,l
ak+m
ak+m
+ 2rphk(X)
(57)
(58)
(59)
891
gratefully acknowledged. We also appreciate the financial support of the Engineering Research Center
and the use of the CAD/CAM computing facility of
the University of Maryland.
NOMENCLATURE
= average nodal distance.
= maximum pseudoflow length.
= maximum number of flow fronts.
= flow proportion for flow i.
= volume filled by flow i.
= time interval for flow i.
= runner diameter.
= shear stress.
= fill pressure.
= temperature difference.
=
892
REFERENCES
1. 0. Pandelidis a n d 9. Zou, Part I, Polym. Eng. Sci., this
issue.
2. C. Austin, Moldflow-Thermoplastics and Thermoset
Flow Analysis, pp. 1.8. 3.8, Moldflow Pty. Ltd., Australia (1987).
3. S. Middleman, Fundamentals of Polymer Processing,
p. 270, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York City
(1977).
4. C. Austin, in Developments in Injection Molding-3, A.
Whelan a n d J . P. Goff, eds., Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers (1985).
5. I. I. Rubin, Injection Molding: Theory and Practice, p.
136, J o h n Wiley a n d Sons, Inc., New York City (1972).
6. I. 0. Pandelidis a n d 9. Zou, SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers,
3 4 , 2 3 3 (1988).
7. David Luenberger, in Linear and Nonlinear Programming, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., New
York (1984).
8. A. V. Fiacco a n d G. P. McCormick, in Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization
Techniques, J o h n Wiley a n d Sons, New York (1968).
9. David Wisner a n d R. Chattergy, in Introduction to
Nonlinear Programming-A Problem Solving Approach, North Holland, New York (1978).
10. J. Vanderplaats, in Numerical Optimization: Techniques f o r Engineering Design. with Applications,
pp. 89, 140, 122, 123. 17, 127, McGraw-Hill Book Co..
New York City (1984).
11. J. H. Cassis a n d L. A . Schrnit, Int. J. Num., Meth.
Engin., 10(1),3 (1976).