Smart Mold: Real-Time In-Cavity Data Acquisition

Hamidreza Karbasi, PhD, P. Eng.

School of Engineering
Conestoga College ITAL
Kitchener, Ontario

Henry Reiser BSc, MASc, CMfgE, FBCASI

School of Engineering
Conestoga College ITAL
Kitchener, Ontario

KEYWORDS Introduction

Smart Mold, Data Acquisition, Plastic Injection, To obtain the desired critical quality attributes
Process Control. in molded products, the injection molding
process must be consciously instrumented and
designed such that the key process variables
ABSTRACT can be measured and used in process control.

Continuous improvements in product quality As shown in Figure 1, typically, a full control

and production cost savings are crucial to
maintaining a competitive edge in the injection
molding industry. To reduce high-run production
costs, automation can be employed to reduce
the cycle time of molding, part inspection and
verification, and machine setup. A fundamental
step in the automation and optimization of any
plastic injection process is to precisely design,
measure and monitor the injection molding
process such that key process variables are
observable and controllable. This research
paper investigated the measurement of two key
process variables during the production process:
in-mold/cavity pressure and temperature.
Results of the in-mold pressure and
temperature profiles demonstrated excellent
affinity and high repeatability with the typical
trends for their class of polymers. The in-cavity
pressure profiles corresponded well with the
filling, packing, and holding points of the
machine pressure profile. Based on the results
of this research, a new process-control strategy
for plastic injection machines is proposed.
block diagram of an injection molding process
involves three nested loops. The first loop (the
most inner) is the one which controls the
machine parameters such as speed, pressure,
and temperature. The second loop (the middle
loop) feeds back the process variables such as
in-mold temperature and pressure and
eventually, the third loop (the outer loop) takes
care of part quality feedback.
The inner loop has been well developed by
injection machine manufacturers. The middle
loop is in the early stages of commercialization
and research on control algorithms and sensor
technologies is ongoing. Research and
implementation of the third level control (quality
control) started in the last decade and still faces
many difficulties and challenges such as on-line
feedback of quality related variables (part
weight, size, and surface finishing).
 Machine
Inputs Machine
Actuators
Machine
Feedback
Machine
Control
Process
Variables
Feedback
Process
Control
Set Point
Control
FIGURE 1. Block diagram of three injection molding
control loops.
This paper focused on the middle loop and the
measurement of two process variables: in-mold
temperature and pressure. Pressure sensing of
a polymer melt poses some significant
challenges relative to pressure sensing of
compressed air or hydraulic fluid. High
pressures, corrosion at high temperatures,
exposure to abrasive materials, and long term
variation in readings as a result of temperature
variation are some of the significant challenges
faced.
Temperature sensing of the polymer melt
poses many of the same significant challenges
as pressure sensing, although temperature
sensors typically have no moving parts and may
be more mechanically robust and less expensive
than pressure sensors. However, temperature
sensors are not generally as accurate as
pressure sensors. The reason is that melt
temperature sensors are necessarily embedded
in the mold steel, so there is a significant heat
transfer from the sensor head to the surrounding
steel. Accordingly, temperature sensors may
have a significant lag phase and steady-state
error in the measurement of melt temperature.
The remainder of this paper will first review the
injection molding process, and the experimental
design used in this research including the mold,
injection machine, and LabView setup will then
be explained. Finally, the experimental results
will be discussed, and a conclusion and future
directions for research will be presented.
Injection Molding Background
Review of Typical Process Used
To produce a good quality injected part, some
machine parameters must be tuned and
adjusted. The main parameters are: mold and
barrel temperatures, velocity profile, screw
Injection
Part
Attributes travel, filling and packing and holding pressure
and time. As a screw injects the plastic melt, it
Process
usually passes through 5 different segments.
The operator is able to adjust the length and
position of each segment as well as the desired
screw speed at each segment. The cavity
Quality pressure within an injection mold can deliver
Feedback
very precise information about the filling phase,
the pack phase and the holding pressure phase.
The different phases in the cavity pressure
profile and the typical correlation between the
cavity pressure profile and the injection pressure
are depicted in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2. Different phases in cavity pressure profile
for amorphous materials.
At the filling phase (1), polymer melt enters the
cavity. As soon as the flow-front reaches the
sensor (2), the pressure is registered. The
pressure should rise in a near-linear gradient
parallel to the duration of the filling time. Once
the cavity is filled (3) the melt is compacted
during the compression phase to ensure the
reproduction of the contours of the mold cavity.
The holding pressure phase follows after the
maximum cavity pressure has been reached (4).
The holding pressure phase compensates for
the high thermal contraction of the polymer
material, i.e., the reduction of its volume
following the cooling down process, by
introducing more material. Up to 10% of the part
volume is being pushed into the cavity during
this production phase. The fact that the molded
part starts to cool down and solidify near the
cavity wall inhibits the pressure transfer. The
melt flow from the area in front of the screw to
the cavity is slowed down as the viscosity of the
material increases and the flow channel
becomes more constricted in the process (gate
freezing). The progressive solidification of the
melt in the gate area (5) and the progressive
thermal contraction causes the pressure within
the cavity to drop to ambient levels (6).
 Amorphous and semi-crystalline new materials. Runner shut-offs were used
thermoplastics are two different polymer such that only the specimen (A) was molded.
materials which display different compression Figure 4 clearly illustrates placement of the
behaviors even though their viscosity is sensors. The temperature sensor is located at
identical. As shown in Figure 2, during the the front of the part, near the start of the fill, and
holding pressure phase of injection molding the pressure sensor was positioned on the rear
processes involving amorphous polymers such ejector pin, near the end of the fill.
as polystyrene (PS), acrylonitrile-butadiene-
styrene (ABS), styrene-acrylo-nitrile (SAN),
polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate
(PC), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), the mold
cavity pressure drops to ambient pressure levels
parallel to the declining part temperature. This
drop in pressure is due to the increase in
viscosity and the corresponding deterioration of
the pressure transfer from the area in front of the
screw.

As seen in Figure 3, due to an initially

sufficient pressure transfer during the injection
molding processes involving semi-crystalline
materials such as polyethylene (PE), FIGURE 3. Cavity pressure profile for semi-
polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA), and crystalline materials.
polyoxymethylene (POM), there is almost no
change in the mold cavity pressure during the
period after the compression phase and at the
on-set of the crystalline melting point. After that,
however, the significant volume contraction
during crystallization brings about a sudden drop
in the pressure. The duration of the holding
pressure phase depends on factors such as the
wall thickness of the molded part, the degree of
crystallization, and the processing parameters.
The crystalline melting point of semi-crystalline
materials for example, is dependent on the
prevailing cavity pressure.

Further comparison between amorphous and

semi-crystalline materials indicates that a
quantity of semi-crystalline material needs to be
introduced to the cavity at the beginning of the
holding pressure phase to achieve a pressure
build-up. When the melt cools down during the
holding pressure phase, more semi-crystalline
material must be introduced into the cavity to
compensate for the volume contraction and to
prevent voids in the finished part.
Experimental Set-up
Mold Setup
An ASTM plaque mold, Figure 4, was selected
for testing the sensors. This mold makes 4
different parts for various mechanical tests on
FIGURE 4. ASTM plaque mold.
Injection Molding Machine
An 80 ton horizontal machine was used for the
trial. This machine and the PC used for data
acquisition are illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 6
illustrates the mold set-up with integrated
sensors on the machine.
LabView Setup
A LabView setup was used to facilitate data
acquisition and sensor calibration for this
project. The LabView hardware and software
layout, and their inter-connections to the in-
cavity sensors, are shown in Figure 7. On the Real-Time In-Cavity Pressure and Temperature Measurements:

software side, a PC with LabView (7.1) read the

Graphical Programming, DAQ card (PCI 6221), and I/O board SC-2075

sensors and wrote the data into an Excel file via LabView Graphical Programming, # 1

a graphical program in LabView. On the

Conversion and
Pressure Reading Monitor and Write to file
Calibration

hardware side, a data acquisition card, PCI Temp. Reading

Conversion and
Calibration
Monitor and Write to file

6221, interfaced the PC/LabView software to an

I/O board, SC-2075. The I/O board collected Connector # 3
PCI 6221, # 2

analog signals from sensor amplifiers through its L 68-pin port R

channels 0 and 1. A 24VDC power supply fed Analog Input, CH0 Analog Input, CH1
the Kistler amplifiers, and the 2209A1 and
5041E1 temperature and pressure amplifiers,
respectively. Finally, the outputs of the sensors Temperature
Amplifier
Power Pressure
Amplifier
Supply
were wired to the amplifier inputs. #5 #7 #6

SC-2075 # 4

List of Components:
1- PC with LabView 7.1 software
2- DAQ card (PCI 6221), installed on the MB of PC
3- 68-pin connector cable (supplied with I/O board)
4- I/O accessory board (SC-2075)
5- Kistler 2209A1 amplifier for temperature sensor
Temp. sensor Pressure Sensor 6- Kistler 5041E1 charge amplifier, thumbwheel
#8 #9 7- 24 VDC power supply
8- Kistler 6193A04 temperature sensor, type K
Cavity 9- Kistler 9221A quartz pressure sensor

FIGURE 7. LabView hardware and software layout to

acquire data from the cavity sensors.

Results & Discussion

FIGURE 5. PC for data acquisition adjacent the
horizontal molding machine.
As discussed previously, there are a number
of machine parameters which must be set to
produce a good quality injection plastic part. The
“expert setup mode” is referred to as those
parameters which are adjusted by an expert
operator at their optimum values through trial
and error. The machine parameters are
supposed to differ from the optimum values in a
“non-expert setup mode.” In this project, the two
parameters of packing and holding pressures
are deviated from their optimum values to
simulate a non-expert mode while the rest of
parameters are kept at their optimum values.
This approach enabled the study of the effects
of machine parameters on in-cavity pressure
and temperature using controlled conditions.

The injection molding was run at the

aforementioned modes six times. Figure 8
FIGURE 6. Mold set up with integrated sensors on shows the samples produced from white
the machine. Polypropylene, left, and black Zytel, right.

FIGURE 8. Parts produced from Polypropylene (left)
and Zytel (right).
Polypropylene
Tests with the Polypropylene material were
conducted six times in both expert and non-
expert modes and in-cavity pressure and
temperature data were collected. Figure 9
through Figure 14 provide the data collected.
The results of the expert mode are illustrated by
dashed lines (expert 1 to 3) while the non-expert
mode results are illustrated by continuous lines
(non-expert 4 to 6).
In Figure 9 and Figure 10, the pressure and
temperature profiles for complete molding time
are shown. The cycle-time and injection-time
were 27.4sec and 0.48sec, respectively,
according to machine setup. For the non-expert
mode the packing and holding pressures were
degraded by 15% from 500psi and 275psi to
425psi and 200psi, respectively. The mold and
barrel temperatures were kept at 90ºF (32.2ºC)
and 374ºF (190ºC) respectively. By the end of
the molding time, the part was ejected by ejector
pins and small pressure ripples were recorded
by the pressure sensor (see Figure 9.) In Figure
10, the non-expert temperature profile shows a
small upward shift in comparison to the expert
profile. This is due to a decrease in heat transfer
from the melt to the mold, as increased pressure
led to higher heat transfer. Higher heat transfer
means less cooling time, and as a result,
savings in molding time and cost.
In Figure 11 and Figure 12, the first 11sec. of
the molding time is illustrated for better
visualization of pressure and temperature
profiles. Comparing the trend of expert pressure
profiles in Figure 11 with the pattern in Figure 3,
two differences are noted. First, the packing
pressure goes to a pick and then drops to the
holding pressure. In the pattern they are almost
the same and this is due to the set-up of the
machine for different packing and holding
pressure by the operator. Second, the pressure
is sustained in an almost constant level from 6th
to 8thsec. The reason for this can be the screw
recovering or feed time which occurs during this
time. This creates a back pressure by charging
the material into the barrel for the next shot.
Other than these two differences, the trend of
the pressure profile is quite similar with the
pattern of other points such as solidification of
the melt in the gate area, and reaching ambient
pressure levels within the cavity, caused by
progressive thermal contraction.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the pressure
and temperature profiles in the first second of
molding. Comparison between the expert
pressure profiles in Figure 14 and the pattern in
Figure 3 reveals an excellent trend match at the
start of the filling phase, the flow-front reaching
the sensor, completing the filling phase, and the
maximum cavity pressure point. These
similarities can also be seen, if we compare
these points with points 1 through 4 in Figure 2,
respectively.
Generally, the graphs in this section
demonstrate excellent consistency and high
repeatability for expert and non-expert results.
The in-cavity pressure and temperature profiles
indicate good agreement with machine expert
and non-expert settings.
FIGURE 9. Pressure profile for complete molding time
of Polypro (expert and non-expert modes).
FIGURE 10. Temperature profile for complete
molding time of Polypro (expert and non-expert
modes).
FIGURE 11. First 11 sec of pressure profile for
Polypro (expert and non-expert modes).
FIGURE 12. First 11 sec of temperature profile for
Polypro (expert and non-expert modes).
FIGURE 13. First second of pressure profile for
Polypro (expert and non-expert modes).
FIGURE 14. First second of temperature profile for
Polypro (expert and non-expert modes).
Process Control Strategy
Generally established molding principles
suggest true process capability relies on
consistent delivery of four key plastic variables
inside the mold cavity: plastic temperature, flow-
rate, pressure gradient, and cooling rate and
time. When these four plastic variables are
matched, the same part will be created,
regardless of the machine the mold is run in.
They also suggest that the effects of the four
aforementioned variables can be seen in the in-
cavity pressure profile. Therefore, the template
for an ideal process can be created based on
the continuous monitoring and recording of in-
cavity pressure, and can be used to adjust other
machine’s parameters. Although installing a high
number of pressure sensors might not be
economical, for a normal size mold and existing
pressure sensor technology, it is completely
achievable.
 Based on the aforementioned principles and
the results of in-cavity pressure profiles obtained
through this research, we will be able to
establish an effective process control that set all
machine parameters based on a given set point
(template) for in-cavity pressure. For any given
part, this template is unique and can be found
through the following simple procedure: An
expert operator will adjust the machine
parameters (expert setup) by trial and error to
produce a good quality part for production.
When the expert operator is satisfied with the
quality of the part, a pressure sensor(s) will
continuously record the status of the in-cavity
pressure. Since in-cavity pressure profiles can
directly or indirectly play a fundamental role in
the constant delivery of quality plastic parts, we
will consider it as a set point for the set-up of a
fully automated machine intended to produce
the same part.
By developing this set point, we will reduce the
control system to a set point tracking system
which is simple and easy to implement. By
utilizing this control system, the part
manufacturers can save a considerable set-up
time. In addition, they can continuously control
the quality of the parts through the real-time
monitoring of in-cavity pressure profile, prevent
any problems that may develop during
production runs, and reduce the production of
defective parts.
The consistency and reliability in the
measurement of in-cavity pressure profiles in
expert mode is a very important finding of this
research. It will enable us to find a pressure
template for any part employing the same
techniques, and using it as a set point in a set
point tracking machine control system.
Conclusion & Future Work
Pressure profiles for Polypropylene polymer
demonstrated excellent agreement and high
repeatability with the typical trend for its class of
polymer. The in-cavity pressure profile
corresponded well with the filling, packing, and
holding points of the machine pressure profile.
Future projects can be divided into two main
themes: 1) as a continuation of this research
project the first theme investigates improving the
existing process controls by diversifying the
type, location, and number of sensors, and
enhancing or replacing the existing process
control algorithms with more advanced ones; 2)
the second theme focuses on the exploration
and implementation of new technologies.
The objectives that can be addressed through
the first theme could include:
• Employment of new sensors to prevent the
production of poor quality/scrap parts in a
high speed production line by employing
multi-cavity tools. The most common
problem associated with producing parts
with numerous small details (such as ribs
and webs) is the “short-shot” phenomena.
Short-shot parts are scrap since their cavity
is not fully packed. Fill sensors, such as an
optical sensor, ultrasonic sensor, and the
Linear Variable Differential Transformer
(LVDT) can be employed to detect and
monitor mold separation, flow-front
advancement during filling stage, and in-
cavity formation of the parts. Short-shot
problem could be addressed by installing
more in-cavity pressure sensors. However,
this is not always practical with existing
pressure sensors technology specially when
dealing with busy and miniature parts [2, 6].
• Development of an I/O-based model for the
plastic injection molding process.
Considering the highly non-linear behavior
of plastics, developing experimental models
could be an interesting future project. By
employing additional in-cavity pressure and
temperature sensors, and testing different
materials, we are able to develop an I/O-
based model for the molding process in
which machine parameters (injection speed,
barrel temperature, packing pressure …)
are inputs and process variables (cavity
pressure, temperature …) and quality
variables (part weight and dimensions …)
are outputs. This model will be essential to
implement any adaptive control algorithms
such as model predictive control (MPC) [2].
• Establishment of real-time feedback from
quality variables. Among machine
parameters, process variables, and quality
variables, quality variables are the most
difficult to measure in real-time and
establishing a methodology for their on-line
measurement would be an excellent future
research project.
 The second theme is to focus on exploring and
developing new technologies including:
• Embedding a fiber Brag grating sensor into
a cavity in which Satellite 6 or cobalt-based
materials will be laser deposited to form a
layer around the sensor and improve wear
resistance in pre-determined locations. This
technology enables us to run tiny fibers
anywhere under shallow in-cavity surfaces
and measure pressure and temperature
continuously across the cavity. This
technology will be particularly effective with
small and busy molds that conventional
pressure sensors can not use because of
their sizes.
• Wireless pressure and temperature sensors
can be employed to reduce instrumentation
and mold modification costs, utilize sensors
at strategic locations and sensors
networking, and expedite data management
and analysis.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Ontario Center of
Excellence – Material and Manufacturing
Ontario (MMO) and Polymer for their financial
support. The authors are also thankful to Paul
Murawsky, Polymer Technologies Inc., for his
help as an expert operator, and Tyler Gross and
Graham Beattie, Conestoga College ITAL
students, for their support in conducting the
literature review and purchasing the sensors.
References
How to make your molds machine and location
independent by utilizing in-cavity pressure data.
www.ides.com/articles/cavity_pressure_data.asp
Kazmer, David O., Knepper, P., Johnston, S., “A
review of in-mold pressure and temperature
instrumentation.” ANTEC Tech Papers 2005, pp.
3300-3304.
Kazmer, David O., “Polymer injection molding
technology for the next millennium,” Journal of
Injection Molding Technology, 1997. 1(2): p. 81-
90.
Masuda, N., Sutoh, K., and Yokoi, H.,
“Measurement of pressure distribution in partial
thin-wall cavity in ultra-high-speed injection
molding”, The University of Tokyo, Study group:
“Ultimate injection molding” in 2003 of the
foundation for the promotion of industrial
science.
Kistler website: www.kistler.com, Plastics: 100%
Quality Injection Molding
TAT Ming Engineering Works LTD.,
www.catalog.com.hk/tatming/, Quality injection
molding.
Yokoi, H., Watanabe, J., Masuda, N., PPS-18
Abstract for the 18th Annual Meeting of the
Polymer Processing Society, 271, 2002.
Zhang, L., Charles, C. B., Gao, R. X, and
Kazmer, D. O., "Design Of Ultrasonic
Transmitters With Defined Frequency
Characteristics For Wireless Pressure Sensing
In Injection Molding," IEEE Transactions on
Ultrasonics.