Nondestructive measurement of layer thickness in water-assisted

coinjection-molded product by ultrasonic technology

Neng Xia,1,2 Peng Zhao ,1,2 Tangqing Kuang,3 Yao Zhao,1,2 Jianfeng Zhang,1,2 Jianzhong Fu1,2
1
The State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic Systems, College of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
2
The Key Laboratory of 3D Printing Process and Equipment of Zhejiang Province, College of Mechanical Engineering,
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China
3
School of Mechatronical & Vehicle Engineering, East China Jiaotong University, Nanchang 330013, China
Correspondence to: P. Zhao (E - mail: pengzhao@zju.edu.cn)

ABSTRACT: Layer thickness is an important factor in judging the quality of a water-assisted coinjection molding (WACIM) part. Here,
a novel nondestructive method for measuring layer thickness via ultrasonic technology is proposed. The reflected signals from the
interface of a WACIM part were measured by an immersed pulse-echo method and calculated using a transfer function of the
medium. Two objective functions were employed to describe the nonsimilarity between the measured signals and the calculated sig-
nals. By solving a multiobjective optimization problem, the optimum parameter was obtained and used to calculate the thickness of
each layer in a WACIM part. The proposed method was employed to measure the layer thickness of WACIM specimens with different
cross sections along the flow direction. Experimental results showed that the proposed method can correctly measure the variation in
layer thickness of each layer of a WACIM part. The proposed method has broad application prospects in nondestructively measuring
the layer thickness of polymeric parts. V
C 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018, 135, 46540.

KEYWORDS: mechanical properties; molding; thermoplastics

Received 18 February 2018; accepted 22 March 2018

DOI: 10.1002/app.46540

INTRODUCTION et al.7 simulated the layer thickness of a WAIM tube with

Water-assisted coinjection molding (WACIM) is an innovative
polymer injection-molding technology, which is used to pro-
duce hollow products with multilayer walls.1 Comparable to
water-assisted injection molding (WAIM) and coinjection mold-
ing (CIM), WACIM has advantages of reduction of amount of
polymer used, weight reduction, performance improvement,
and greater freedom of product design.2–5 Recently, WACIM
technology has been widely used for automotive components,
household items, and furniture parts, highlighting a bright
future for WACIM with regard to market prospects.1,2,6 In
WACIM, the thickness of the layer walls significantly affects the
mechanical properties of molded products and is an important
factor in judging the quality of the products.1 Many studies
have been conducted to investigate the thickness and distribu-
tion of residual walls of the products.7–11 Kuang et al.1 em-
ployed a computational fluid dynamics method to simulate the
WACIM process, and they found that layer thickness was
affected by injection delay time, temperature, and injection
velocity. They also investigated the influence of cross-sectional
shape and processing parameters on layer thickness.2,6 Yang
dimensional transitions and curved sections by the volume-of-
fluid method. Li et al.11 found that the viscosity ratio of the
core melt to the skin melt had a great influence on the distribu-
tion of polymers. However, in these studies, the thickness mea-
surement methods for layer walls are destructive, and they
require cutting open the WACIM specimens to measure thick-
ness. Thus, a high-accuracy, simple to use, and nondestructive
measurement method would have broad application in investi-
gating WACIM products.
Current nondestructive methods include radiography,12 ultra-
sonic technology,13 infrared thermography,14 indirect sen-
sors,15,16 and magnetic levitation detection.17–21 Among these
methods, ultrasonic technology has great potential as an online,
real-time, environmentally friendly, and low-cost method
for characterizing injection-molded parts.22,23 Zhao et al.24
employed ultrasound to monitor the injection-molding process
and characterize the polymer morphology changes. Mulvaney-
Johnson et al.9 applied an ultrasound sensor system for real-
time diagnosis of water- and gas-assisted injection molding.
Cheng et al.10 employed ultrasound for an online diagnosis of a

C 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

V

46540 (1 of 8) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

Figure 1. WACIM specimen: (a) two-dimensional diagram, (b) longitudinal view of the specimen, (c) cross-sectional view of the specimen. [Color figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

coinjection molding process. Zhao et al.25,26 proposed an ultrasonic
method to measure the crystallization of an injection-molded part
and the cavity pressure during an injection-molding process. Raisu-
tis et al.27,28 used the ultrasonic pulse-echo technique to character-
ize multilayer plastic materials and simultaneously calculate the
acoustic properties of each layer, including density, ultrasound
velocity, absorption, and phase velocity dispersion. However, to the
best of our knowledge, ultrasonic technology has not been used to
measure layer thickness in WACIM products.
Here, a nondestructive measurement method for measuring the
layer thickness in WACIM products via ultrasonic technology is
proposed. In this study, we only know the range of each layer’s
acoustic parameters and the number of layers. The ultrasonic
signals reflected from the interface of the WACIM part were cal-
culated by a transfer function, which is related to the acoustic
parameters of each layer. Two objective functions were
employed to describe the nonsimilarity between the calculated
signals and the measured signals. By solving a multiobjective
optimization problem, the optimum parameter of each layer
can be obtained. Then, the layer thickness can be calculated by
the optimum parameter and propagation times. Two different
WACIM products with different cross sections were employed
to verify the proposed method.
molding machine, a water-injection unit, a mold with change-
able inserts, and a control unit. The molding machine was a
110-ton coinjection-molding machine (FB-110C, FCS Group,
Tainan, Taiwan). The lab-developed water-injection unit
included a plunger water pump with a maximum pressure of 20
MPa, a pressure-regulating valve, a water tank, and a water-
injection pin. The switching of the water-injection pin was
accomplished via a pneumatic control system.
The diagram of a WACIM specimen is shown in Figure 1. As
shown there, the outer layer is HDPE and the inner layer is PP.
A frame of reference is defined with x and y axes in Figure 1(a).
The x axis is coincident with the longitudinal direction, and the
y axis coincides with the cross section of the WACIM specimen.
Starting near the polymer melt inlet, six measuring points (I–
VI) were selected every 20 mm. The longitudinal and cross-
sectional views of the specimen are shown in Figure 1(b) and
Figure 1(c), respectively.
Ultrasonic Measurement Device
The ultrasonic device for measuring the layer thickness of
WACIM specimens is shown in Figure 2. A signal generator
(CTS-8077PR, Shantou Goworld Co., Shantou, China) was used
to generate ultrasonic signals. A longitudinal wave pulsing/

EXPERIMENTAL
Specimen Preparation
High-density polyethylene (HDPE, grade DMDA-8008, Dush-
anzi Petrochemical Co., Karamay, China) and polypropylene
(PP, grade 1102K, Jinxi Petrochemical Co., Huludao, China)
were employed in the WACIM specimens for their applicability
in the WAIM process and the compatibility between them. In
order to get a stable penetration of the inner melt in the skin
polymer, HDPE with a higher melt flow index (MFI) and PP
with a relatively lower MFI were used as the outer and inner
materials, respectively. To conveniently identify the interface
between the skin layer and the inner layer, black and red colo-
rants were added.
The specimen was manufactured on a lab-developed WACIM Figure 2. Photograph of ultrasonic measurement setup. [Color figure can
experimental platform, which was composed of a coinjection- be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

46540 (2 of 8) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
receiving ultrasonic transducer with 2.5 MHz central frequency
(Guangzhou Doppler Electronic Technologies Co., Guangzhou,
China) was selected in pulse-echo mode. A computer was
employed to acquire and analyze the ultrasonic data from a digital
oscilloscope (DS0X2002A, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara,
CA). An ultrasonic water immersion method was employed in
this study. The longitudinal ultrasonic waves were generated by
the transducer, and they propagated into the water. One portion
of the ultrasonic signals were reflected from the WACIM speci-
men, and they were received by the digital oscilloscope.
Characterization Methods
To observe the interface of the WACIM part, the specimens
were placed in liquid nitrogen for 10 min and experienced brit-
tle fracture.29 A scanning electron microscope (SEM; fully digi-
tal SU8010 instrument, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) was employed to
observe the interface after sputter-coating the samples with gold
for 70 s. The operating parameters of SEM are as follows: the
acceleration voltage is 3 kV, the operating distance is 8.9 mm,
and the magnification is 40.
For the results comparison, the WACIM specimen was cut along
the y direction [as Figure 1(a)] and measured using an optical
microscope (Optec SZ680, Chongqing, China). The samples
were placed on the microscope stage. After adjusting the focal
length and magnification, the measurement function of the
microscope was employed to measure the layer thickness of the
specimens.
Modeling and Methods
Ultrasonic Propagation Model in Layered Polymers. As shown
in Figure 3, when an ultrasonic wave propagates in a medium,
ultrasonic signals will be reflected from the upper and lower
surfaces of the medium. The reflected signals are connected by
a transfer function of the medium, as shown in eq. (1):
Ui ðf Þ
Hk ðf Þ5 (1)
Ui21 ðf Þ
where Hk ðf Þ is the transfer function, k is the number of layers
(k 5 1, 2, 3, 4), and i is the number of interfaces between the
kth layer and (k 1 1)th layer (i 5 1, 2, 3). As shown in Figure 3,
Figure 3. Ultrasonic measurement model diagram. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
46540 (3 of 8)
k 5 1 and k 5 4 denote the corresponding medium is water, and
k 5 2 and k 5 3 denote the media are the outer layer (HDPE)
and the inner layer (PP) of the WACIM specimen, respectively.
Here, Ui ðf Þ5jFT ðui ðtÞÞj is the amplitude spectra of the ultra-
sonic signal (ui ðtÞ) reflected from the ith interface, and FT is
the Fourier transform. Since the reflected signal will be affected
by the phenomena of reflection, transmission, absorption, and
scattering, the transfer function can be calculated by eqs. (2)
and (3):
f nk
Hk ðf Þ5Kk e 22mxk ak ðfc Þ 2jðUi21 ðf Þ2Ui ðf ÞÞ
(2)
 
Ai 0
Ri Ti21 Ti21 4Zk21 Zk ZZk11 2Zk
k11 1Zk
Kk 5 5 5 (3)
Ai21 Ri21 Zk2 2Zk21
2
When ultrasound travels through a medium, its amplitude dimin-
ishes with distance.13 This phenomenon is called ultrasonic atten-
uation. The attenuation coefficient can be used to determine the
decay rate of ultrasound amplitude with distance. The unit of the
attenuation coefficient in Neper per centimeter (Np/cm) can be
converted to decibel per centimeter (dB/cm) by dividing with m
(m 5 0.115), where Neper is a logarithmic unit. Here, xk is the
thickness of the kth layer; ak is the attenuation coefficient at the
center
pffiffiffiffiffiffifrequency
ffi (fc ); nk is the power of the attenuation slope;
j5 21; Ui ðf Þ is the phase spectra of ui ðtÞ; Kk is a proportional-
ity coefficient and is determined by the reflection coefficient and
transmission coefficient of each interface, as shown in eq. (3); Ai
is the amplitude of ui ðtÞ; Ri represents the reflection coefficient
from the ith interface; Ti21 is the transmission coefficient through
the (i 2 1)th interface between adjacent layers in the direct pro-
0
pagation direction; Ti21 is the transmission coefficient through
the (i21)th interface between adjacent layers in opposite
directions; Zk 5qk ck denotes the acoustic impedance of the kth
layer; qk is the density of the kth layer; and ck is the ultrasound
velocity of the kth layer. Thus, the transfer function is closely
related to the parameters of each layer: qk , ck , and ak .
From eqs. (1)–(3), an equation for calculating the reflected signal
ui ðtÞ from the ith interface can be obtained, as shown in eq. (4):
ui ðtÞ5IFT ðFT ðui21 ðtÞÞ3Hk ðf ÞÞ (4)
where IFT denotes the inverse Fourier transform.
Calculation of Propagation Model. According to eq. (4), it can
be noted that the reflected signal ui ðtÞ is a function of acoustic
parameters. However, the ultrasonic propagation model can
hardly be solved directly. In this section, a multiobjective opti-
mization method is proposed to calculate acoustic parameters
and layer thickness.
To evaluate the calculated results, a normalized root-mean-square
error is employed as the objective function (Fi ), as shown in
eq. (5):
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uXNmax
u ðu ðtÞ2umi ðtÞÞ2
u 51 ci
Fi 5t NX Nmax (5)
N 51 mi
u ðtÞ2
where uci ðtÞ is the ultrasonic signal calculated by eq. (4), umi ðtÞ
represents the measured signal from the ith interface, and Nmax
is the number of samples. When the objective function attains
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
Figure 4. Optimization method for multiobjective problem. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
its lowest value, the calculated signal is in good agreement with
the measured signal. According to eqs. (1-5), Fi is a multivariate
function: Fi ðqk21 ; ck21 ; qk ; ck ; qk11 ; ck11 ; ak Þ. When i 5 2, F2 5
F2 ðq1 ; c1 ; q2 ; c2 ; q3 ; c3 ; a2 Þ, where q1 and c1 are the density and
ultrasound velocity of water, respectively. When i 5 3,
F3 5F3 ðq2 ; c2 ; q3 ; c3 ; q4 ; c4 ; a3 Þ, where q4 and c4 are the density
and the ultrasound velocity of water, respectively. Since q1 , c1 ,
q4 , and c4 can be treated as constants, a multiobjective optimi-
zation problem was proposed to calculate the parameters of
each layer:
Minimize : F2 ðq2 ; c2 ; q3 ; c3 ; a2 Þ; F3 ðq2 ; c2 ; q3 ; c3 ; a3 Þ
Subject to : ck 2 ½ckmin ; ckmax ; ak 2 ½akmin ; akmax 
Current methods for multiobjective optimization include the
penalty function method,30,31 particle swarm optimization,32,33
genetic algorithms,34,35 response surface methodology,36 and
fuzzy logic.37–39 Due to the different sensitivities of the parame-
ters to the objective functions, it is difficult to determine the
weight coefficient with these methods, which was used to con-
vert the multiobjective optimization problem into a single-
objective optimization problem, and the corresponding pro-
grams are complicated. Here, an iterative search method was
employed to solve the multiobjective optimization problem, as
shown in Figure 4. The parameters changed at a certain interval,
and the value range of the objective functions can be obtained
using eq. (5): F2 2 ½F2min ; F2max , F3 2 ½F3min ; F3max . When the
upper bounds of the two objective functions continuously
decrease, the corresponding solution spaces will narrow, and the
calculated signals will gradually approach the measured signals.
When the only solution is left in the solution space, the
Figure 5. Flowchart of implementation procedure for measuring the layer thickness of a WACIM part. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
46540 (4 of 8)
optimum parameter can be obtained. Then, the layer thickness
of each layer (xk ) can be calculated by eq. (6):
ck 3 tk
xk 5 (6)
2
where tk is the propagation time of ultrasound in the kth layer.
Measurement Implementation
According to the measurement device and the measurement
theory, the implementation procedure for measuring the layer
thickness of a WACIM specimen can be illustrated in a flow-
chart, as shown in Figure 5, and is summarized as the following
steps:
Step 1: Determine the prior known parameters. The parame-
ters include the number of layers, the range of ultrasound
velocity (ck ), and attenuation (ak ).
Step 2: Measure the reflected signals of the WACIM specimen
with the measurement device. The specimen was placed in a
container. The reflected signals were measured by the device
shown in Figure 2. Then, the amplitude of the reflected signal
(Ai ) and the propagation time (tk ) can be obtained.
Step 3: Calculate the reflected signals. According to the mea-
sured signal from the front surface of the kth layer ½ui21 ðtÞ],
the initial parameters, and the transfer function, as shown in
eq. (2), the reflected signal from the back surface of the kth
layer [uci ðtÞ] can be obtained using eq. (4).
Step 4: Calculate the objective function. Combining the calcu-
lated signal in Step 3 [uci ðtÞ], the measured signal [umi ðtÞ], and
eq. (5), the value of the objective function can be calculated.
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
Figure 6. Cross-sectional views of WACIM part: (a) SEM image, (b) optical microscope image. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Step 5: Adjust parameters and recalculate the objective func-
tion. The parameters (ck , ak ) changed at a certain interval:
Dc510 m=s, Da50:5 dB=cm. These will affect the transfer func-
tion and the calculated signals. Then, a new value of the objective
function can be recalculated by following Steps 3 and 4.
Step 6: Determine the optimum parameter by multiobjective
optimization. By gradually decreasing the upper bounds of
two objective functions until the only solution is left in the
solution space, the optimum parameter can be obtained.
Step 7: Calculate the thickness of each layer. The layer thickness
was calculated using eq. (6) and the optimum parameter.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the above method, a program for nondestructive mea-
surement of the layer thickness in a WACIM part was devel-
oped. Three case studies were carried out as part of this study
to validate the proposed method.
Layer Thickness of WACIM Specimen
A WACIM specimen was measured in this study. Its cross-
sectional views were captured by an optical microscope and
SEM, as shown in Figure 6. It can be seen that there is a clear
Figure 7. Example of the measured signal u1 ðtÞ, u2 ðtÞ, and u3 ðtÞ: (a) ultrasound in full-wave mode, (b) ultrasound in radio-frequency mode. [Color fig-
ure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
46540 (5 of 8)
interface between the outer HDPE polymers and the inner PP
polymers.
An ultrasonic signal reflected from the interface is shown in Figure
7. The ultrasound in full-wave mode [Figure 7(a)] was employed
to determine the reflected signal. From Figure 7(a), u1 ðtÞ, u2 ðtÞ,
and u3 ðtÞ occupied seven peaks each. The ultrasound in radio-
frequency mode [Figure 7(b)] was used for the calculation accord-
ing to the proposed method. The propagation time was calculated
by the time difference between the first peaks of the adjacent
reflected signals. As shown in Figure 7, t2 51:49 ls (propagation
time in HDPE) and t3 51:33 ls (propagation time in PP). Since
the density of the material has a standard value and changes
little, q2 and q3 are regarded as constants (q2 5956:6 kg=m3 ,
q3 5918 kg=m3 ). The ultrasound velocities and attenuation of the
specimen were known only approximately: c2 2 ½2000; 2500,
c3 2 ½2300; 2800, a2 2 ½1; 20, a3 2 ½1; 20. By iteratively adjusting
these parameters, the range of objective functions F2 and F3 can be
obtained: F2 2 ½0:33; 1:67, F3 2 ½0:48; 5:423103 . When the upper
bounds of the two objective functions were decreased to F2 2 ½0:33;
0:37 and F3 2 ½0:48; 0:49, the only solution was left in the solution
space. Meanwhile, the calculated signals were both well matched
with the measured signals. A comparison of results between the
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP

Figure 8. Comparison between calculated signals and measured signals: (a) waveform from the interface of HDPE and PP [u2 ðtÞ], (b) waveform from
the interface of PP and water [u3 ðtÞ]. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

optimum calculated signals and measured signals is shown in Figure
8. It can be found that the calculated signals are in good agree-
ment with the measured signals. The optimum parameters are
c2 52020 m=s, c3 52370 m=s, a2 51:5 dB=cm, and a3 51:0 dB=cm.
According to eq. (6), the layer thicknesses of HDPE and PP can be
obtained: x2 51:50 mm, x3 51:57 mm. The microscope-measured
thicknesses of HDPE and PP are 1.68 mm and 1.60 mm, respectively.
In comparing the results between ultrasonic technology and the
microscopic method, the maximum deviation was less than 0.18 mm.
Error Analysis
The uncertainty of the calculated thickness was analyzed using
eq. (7):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
oxk oxk tk
dxk 5 dck 1 dtk 5 dck 1
ock otk 2 2
where dtk , dck , and dxk represent the uncertainty of propagation
time, ultrasound velocity, and layer thickness, respectively.
Assuming that dck 550 m=s and dtk 50:1 ls, typical results for
an error analysis are shown in Table I, and it can be found that
the uncertainty of the total layer thickness is 0.24 mm, and the
propagation time (tk ) has the greatest impact on calculation
error.
Variation of Layer Thickness along the Flow Direction
To further verify the proposed method, layer thicknesses at six
specified locations of a square WACIM specimen were mea-
sured. The diagram of measured positions is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 9 shows the cross-sectional view of the square specimen.
A comparison between calculated results and results measured
by microscope is shown in Figure 10. From Figure 10(a), it can
be found that the ultrasound velocity of HDPE is about
2050 m/s, and the ultrasound velocity of PP is about 2350 m/s.
The consistent calculated ultrasound velocity indicates that the
proposed calculation method for the ultrasonic propagation
model is correct. From Figure 10(b), the layer thicknesses
obtained by ultrasonic method and microscope for each layer
have the same trend, while the deviation between the calculated
total thickness and measured total thickness was about 0.2 mm.
It also can be found that the total thickness calculated by the
proposed method was less than the measured result. The reason
might be that the propagation time extracted from the wave-
form is less than the real propagation time.
As shown in Figure 10(b), the outer layer (HDPE) becomes
thicker in the flow direction, and the inner layer (PP) becomes
thinner. This was because the outer melt could not come into
2 c 2
k
dtk (7) contact with the fluid during the filling stage of the overflow
fluid-assisted coinjection molding (O-FACIM) process, and its
layer thickness was mainly affected by the inner melt penetration.
The total layer thickness of the WACIM specimen becomes
slightly thinner. In short, the calculated results were in good
agreement with the microscope results, and the proposed method
can be used to investigate the variations of layer thickness.
Layer Thickness of Rectangular Specimen
In this section, the proposed method is applied to measure a
specimen with a rectangular cross section. The distribution of
measuring positions is the same as in Figure 1. The cross-
sectional view of the rectangular specimen is illustrated in Fig-
ure 11. A comparison between calculated results and results
measured by microscope is shown in Figure 12. From Figure
12(a), it can be found that the calculated ultrasound velocity of

Table I. Typical Results of Error Analysis

oxk oxk
Number of layers ock dck otk dtk dxk
k 5 2 (HDPE) 0.04 mm 0.11 mm 0.12 mm
Figure 9. Cross-sectional view of square specimen: (a) photograph of
k 5 3 (PP) 0.03 mm 0.12 mm 0.12 mm
cross section, (b) dimensions of cross section. [Color figure can be viewed
Total thickness — — 0.24 mm at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

46540 (6 of 8) J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540

ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
Figure 10. Calculated results for square specimen: (a) distribution of ultrasound velocity, (b) comparison between calculated results and microscope
results. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 11. Cross-sectional view of rectangular specimen: (a) photograph
of cross section, (b) dimensions of cross section. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
HDPE is about 2050 m/s, and the calculated ultrasound velocity
of PP is about 2350 m/s, which are the same as the calculated
results for the square specimen. As can also be seen in Figure
12(b), the layer thicknesses calculated by the proposed method
are in good agreement with the measured results from the
microscope.
As shown in Figure 12(b), it can be found that the layer thick-
nesses of the outer and inner layers fluctuate, which results in
the fluctuation of the total thickness. This shows that the pene-
tration of water in the inner melt was not stable. Zhou40 stud-
ied the interface stability of a multiphase stratified flow and
Figure 12. Calculated results for rectangular specimen: (a) distribution of ultrasound velocity, (b) comparison between calculated results and microscope
results. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
46540 (7 of 8)
found that a pair of vortexes with different sizes and opposite
directions resulted in an unstable three-dimensional flow of
multiphase stratified polymer melts. The results in Figure 12
indicate that the proposed method can be used to investigate
the unstable flow in WACIM process.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a nondestructive method for measuring the layer
thickness of a WACIM part via ultrasound was proposed. The
reflected signal from the interface of the WACIM part was mea-
sured by the immersed pulse-echo method and calculated by
the transfer function of the medium. Two objective functions
were employed to describe the nonsimilarity between the mea-
sured signal and the calculated signal. The objective functions
are closely related to the density, ultrasound velocity, and atten-
uation of the medium. By solving the multiobjective optimiza-
tion problem, the optimum parameter was obtained and used
to calculate the layer thickness of each layer in the WACIM
part. Several experiments were carried out to verify the pro-
posed method. Based on the results obtained in this study, the
following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The proposed method
can be used to simulate the reflected ultrasonic signals and
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540
ARTICLE WILEYONLINELIBRARY.COM/APP
calculate the acoustic parameters and thickness of each layer.
(2) The proposed method can correctly measure the variation
of layer thickness of the WACIM part with different cross sec-
tions along the flow direction. (3) For the square WACIM part,
the outer layer becomes thicker and the inner layer becomes
thinner along the flow direction due to the penetration of the
inner melt. (4) For the rectangular WACIM part, the layer
thicknesses of the inner and outer layers fluctuated along the
flow direction, which indicated that the penetration of water in
the inner melt was not stable. In general, the proposed method
can nondestructively characterize the layer thickness of the
WACIM part. It offers high accuracy, portability, simplicity of
use, and low cost, and it has prospects for broad application in
nondestructively measuring the layer thickness of polymeric
parts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the
Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China
(LZ18E050002), the Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51521064), the
National Natural Science Foundation Council of China (51475420,
51635006, 51563010), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities of China (2017QNA4003), and the Opening
Project of Key Laboratory of Polymer Processing Engineering of
South China University of Technology, Ministry of Education
(KFKT-201501).
REFERENCES
1. Kuang, T. Q.; Xu, B. P.; Zhou, G. F.; Turng, L. S. J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 2015, 132, 34.
2. Kuang, T. Q.; Zhou, K.; Wu, L. X.; Zhou, G. F.; Turng, L. S.
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2016, 133, 914.
3. Lin, K. Y.; Liu, S. J. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2010, 295, 342.
4. Park, H. P.; Cha, B. S.; Park, S. B.; Choi, J. H.; Kim, D. H.;
Rhee, B. O.; Lee, K. H. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 1.
5. Kim, N. H.; Isayev, A. I. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2015, 55, 88.
6. Kuang, T. Q.; Yu, C. C.; Xu, B. P.; Turng, L. S. J. Polym.
Eng. 2016, 36, 139.
7. Yang, J. G.; Zhou, X. H. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2013, 128, 1987.
8. Kuang, T. Q.; Wang, G. Y.; Zhou, K.; Wu, L. X. China Plast.
2016, 30, 69.
9. Mulvaney-Johnson, L.; Cheng, C. C.; Ono, Y.; Brown, E. C.;
Jen, C. K.; Coates, P. D. Plast. Rubber Compos. 2007, 36,
111.
10. Cheng, C. C.; Ono, Y.; Jen, C. K. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2007, 47,
1491.
11. Li, C. T.; Lee, D. J.; Isayev, A. I. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003,
88, 2310.
12. Zheng, S.; Vanderstelt, J.; McDermid, J. R.; Kish, J. R. NDTE
Int. 2017, 91, 32.
46540 (8 of 8)
13. Zhao, P.; Fu, J. Z.; Cui, S. B. Mater. Res. Innov. 2013, 15,
S311.
14. Vavilov, V. P.; Pawar, S. S. Polym. Test. 2015, 44, 224.
15. Zhou, X. D.; Zhang, Y.; Mao, T.; Zhou, H. M. J. Mater. Pro-
cess. Technol. 2017, 249, 358.
16. Zhao, P.; Zhou, H. M.; He, Y.; Cai, K.; Fu, J. Z. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Tech. 2014, 72, 765.
17. Xia, N.; Zhao, P.; Xie, J.; Zhang, C. Q.; Fu, J. Z. Polym. Test.
2018, 66, 32.
18. Xie, J.; Zhao, P.; Zhang, C.; Fu, J. Polym. Test. 2016, 56, 308.
19. Xia, N.; Zhao, P.; Xie, J.; Zhang, C. Q.; Fu, J. Z. Polym. Test.
2017, 63, 455.
20. Zhang, C. Q.; Zhao, P.; Xie, J.; Xia, N.; Fu, J. Z. Polym. Test.
2018, 67, 177.
21. Zhao, P.; Xie, J.; Gu, F.; Sharmin, N.; Fu, J. Z. Waste. Man-
age. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.051.
22. Lionetto, F.; Maffezzoli, A. Adv. Polym. Techno. 2010, 27, 63.
23. Wang, H.; Hao, X.; Yan, K.; Zhou, H. M.; Hua, L. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 2018, 257, 213.
24. Zhao, L. J.; Lai, Y.; Pei, C.; Jen, C. K.; Wu, K. D. J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 2012, 126, 2059.
25. Zhao, P.; Peng, Y. Y.; Yang, W. M.; Fu, J. Z.; Turng, L. S. J.
Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys. 2015, 53, 700.
26. Zhao, P.; Wang, S.; Ying, J.; Fu, J. Z. Polym. Test. 2013, 32,
1436.
27. Raisutis, R.; Kazys, R.; Mazeika, L. NDTE Int. 2008, 41, 300.
28. Raisutis, R.; Kazys, R.; Mazeika, L. NDTE Int. 2007, 40, 324.
29. Zhao, P.; Yang, W. M.; Wang, X. M.; Li, J. G.; Yan, B.; Fu, J.
Z. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B 2018, https://doi.org/10.
1177/0954405417718593.
30. Li, M. Y.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, Y. G.; Zhou, H. M.
Carbon 2018, 130, 295.
31. Zhao, P.; Yang, D.; Zhou, H. M.; Xu, K. Polym. Plast. Tech-
nol. Eng. 2011, 50, 581.
32. Zhang, X. Y.; Zheng, X. T.; Cheng, R.; Qiu, J. F.; Jin, Y. C.
Inf. Sci. 2018, 427, 63.
33. Zhao, P.; Zhou, H. M.; Li, Y.; Li, D. Q. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Techno. 2010, 49, 949.
34. Helbig, M.; Engelbrecht, A. R. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2014,
14, 31.
35. Yang, D.; Zhao, P.; Zhou, H. M.; Chen, L. J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 2014, 33, 1403.
36. Mwesigye, A.; Bello-Ochende, T.; Meyer, J. P. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 2015, 77, 42.
37. Zhou, H. M.; Zhao, P.; Wei, F. Adv. Polym. Tech. 2007, 26,
191.
38. Li, D. Q.; Zhou, H. M.; Zhao, P.; Li, Y. Polym. Eng. Sci.
2009, 49, 2031.
39. Zhao, P.; Fu, J. Z.; Cui, S. B. J. Zhejiang. Univ., Sci., A. 2011,
12, 201.
40. Zhou, G. F. CIESC J. 2004, 55, 1174.
J. APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/APP.46540