PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION OF INJECTION MOULDING

FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) TOOTHBRUSHUSING

TAGUCHI METHOD
A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Award of the Degree

Of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN

MECHANICAL ENGINERING

SUBMITTED BY
SHAMBHU KUMAR SINGH
ROLL NO. 37180603

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

Er. Ashok Kumar
(Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering)
Shree Ram Mulkh Institute of Engineering & Technology

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SHREE RAM MULKH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING &TECHNOLOGY
BHUREWALA-133208 (NARAINGARH)
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA-136119
September, 2020
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in the thesis, entitled
“PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION OF INJECTION MOULDING FOR
POLYPROPYLENE TOOTHBRUSH USING TAGUCHI METHOD” for the award of
the degree of Master of Technology in Mechanical Engineering is an authentic record of my
own work carried out under the supervision of Er. Ashok Kumar, Assistant Professor of
Mechanical Engineering Department, Shree Ram Mulkh Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Bhurewala (Naraingarh) affiliated to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. The
matter presented in this thesis has not been submitted by me for the award of any degree of
this or any other University/Institute.

Further, I declare that where other’s ideas or words have been included, I have adequately
cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of
academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any
idea/data/fact/source in my submission. I understand that any violation of the above will be
cause for disciplinary action by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources
which have thus not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken
when needed.

I hereby agree to indemnify SHREE RAM MULKH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

& TECHNOLOGY and its Teaching Staff against any and all losses incurred in
connection with the processing related to any claim of plagiarism and/or copyright
infringement. Further, the responsibility of this act of plagiarism or infringement, if
proved, will be borne solely by me.

Date: 30/09/20020 Shambhu Kumar Singh

Roll No.: 37180603
i
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION OF

INJECTION MOULDING FOR POLYPROPYLENE TOOTHBRUSH USING
TAGUCHI METHOD” submitted by Shambhu Kumar Singh, Roll No. 37180603 to the
Department of Mechanical Engineering of Shree Ram Mulkh Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Bhurewala (Naraingarh) in accordance with the rules and regulations of
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra for the award of the Degree of Master of Technology in
Mechanical Engineering is a bona fide research work carried out by him under my supervision
and guidance. His thesis has reached the standard of fulfilling the requirements of regulations
relating to degree.

I wish him success in all his future endeavors.

Er. Ashok Kumar

Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
SRMIET, Bhurewala, Ambala

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, I take the opportunity to express my heart felt adulation and gratitude to
my supervisor, Er. Ashok Kumar, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department,
Shree Ram Mulkh Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bhurewala, Ambala for his
unreserved guidance, constructive suggestions, thought provoking discussions and unabashed
inspiration in nurturing this research work.

I would like to thank Er. Yaspal, Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, Shree Ram
Mulkh Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bhurewala, Ambala to facilitate my
experimental work and for his generosity which I has received throughout my entire research
program.

I am grateful to Mr. Sono Bhardwaj, Asst. Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department,

Shree Ram Mulkh Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bhurewala, Ambala for his timely
guidance, support and encouragement during this work.

I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of Mr. Sailendra
singh (General Manager) and Mr. Santosh kumar singh (Production Engineer) Raghav
Lifestyle Products, Kundli for providing the opportunity to perform the experiment and
providing valuable suggestions concerning this research work.

I cannot close these prefatory remarks without expressing my deep sense of gratitude and
special thanks to my dear parents for their blessings and love to keep my moral high
throughout the period of my work. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support, care and help
extended by my uncle Radhe Prasad singh without which this achievement would have
remained a dream.

I want to express my sincere thanks to all those who directly or indirectly helped me at
various stages of this work.

Above all, I express my indebtedness to the “ALMIGHTY” for all His blessing and
kindness.

SHAMBHU KUMAR SINGH

Roll No.: 37180603

iii
 ABSTRACT

The old concept of using the trial and error approach to determine the desired process
parameters for injection molding machine is no longer hold good enough because the
complexity of product design and global competition in injection moulding industry. Now-a-
day’s plastic is widely used polymer due to its high production rate, low cost and capability
to produce complex parts with high precision. So the settings of various processing
parameters of the injection moulding process to minimize defects is challenging task that
costs time, effort and money. It is much difficult to set optimal process parameter levels
which may cause defects in articles, such as Short-shots, Flash, Silver-spots & Shrinkage.
The objective of the present work was to minimize the rejection rate of the product
manufactured due to defects like Short-shots, Flash, Silver-spots & Shrinkage by optimizing
the various process parameters. The effect of process parameters, such as Injection Pressure,
Packing Pressure, Injection Time, Cooling Time, Zone 1 Temperature & Zone 2 Temperature
(Barrel Temperatures) on various defects were investigated by using Taguchi Method. It is
important to select accurate orthogonal array and for this task Minitab 17 Statistical Software
was used for designing the experiments. In this work, the Orthogonal Arrays (L16) are used
to study the six factors at two levels each with the response being percentage defectives. It
was found that injection time is the most significant factor affecting the response followed by
Zone 1 temperature and injection pressure. Packing pressure was found to be the least
effective factor. After the application of Taguchi Method, the rejection rate dropped down
from 10.29% to 5.88%, which is a 42.85% reduction. The optimum value for all the factors
are: Injection Pressure: 55, Packing Pressure: 30, Injection Time: 6, Cooling Time: 8, Zone
1 Temperature: 220, Zone 2 Temperature: 205.

iv
 CONTENTS

Page No.
Declaration i
Certificate ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract iv
Contents v
List of Figures viii
List of Tables x
List of Abbreviations xi

1. CHAPTER – 2: INTRODUCTION 1-13

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 History and Development 2
1.3 Injection Molding Machinery 3
1.4 Components of Injection Molding Machinery 4
1.4.1 Clamping unit 4
1.4.2 Injection unit 7
1.4.3 Drive unit 8
1.5 Basic Principle of Injection Molding 8
1.6 Importance of Injection Molding Process in Present Day Manufacturing 9
1.7 Advantages of Injection Molding Process 10
1.8 Disadvantages of Injection Molding Process 12
1.9 Applications of Injection Moulding Process 13
2. CHAPTER – 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 14-24
2.1 Review of Literature 16
3. CHAPTER – 3: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE 25-39
3.1 Machine Tool 25
3.2 Molding Material 26
3.3 Experimental Design Methodology 27
 3.3.1 Taguchi’s Philosophy 28
3.3.2 Experimental Design Strategy 28
3.3.3 Loss Function 30
3.3.3.1 Average loss-function for product population 31
3.3.3.2 Other loss functions 31
3.3.4 Signal to Noise Ratio 31
3.3.5 Relation between S/N Ratio and Loss Function 35
3.3.6 Steps in Experimental Design and Analysis 36
3.3.6.1 Selection of orthogonal array (OA) 36
3.3.6.2 Assignment of parameters and interaction to the OA 38
3.3.6.3 Selection of outer array 38
3.3.6.4 Experimentation and data collection 39
3.3.6.5 Data analysis 39
4. CHAPTER – 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION 40-68
4.1 Introduction 40
4.2 Selection of Orthogonal Array and Parameter Assignment 40
4.3 Experimental Results 41
4.4 Analysis and Discussion of Results 44
4.4.1 Effect on Short-shots 44
4.4.1.1 Selection of optimal levels 49
4.4.2 Effect on Flash 49
4.4.2.1 Selection of optimal levels 54
4.4.3 Effect on Silver-spots 54
4.4.3.1 Selection of optimal levels 59
4.4.4 Effect on Shrinkage 59
4.4.4.1 Selection of optimal levels 64
4.5 Confirmation Experiment 64
4.5.1 Confirmation Run 68
vi
5. CHAPTER – 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE 69-70
5.1 Conclusion 69
 5.2 Scope for Future Work 70

REFERENCES 71-75
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 76

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page No.

Fig. 1.1 Injection Moulding process 5

Fig. 1.2 A Clamping unit 5
Fig. 1.3 Direct hydraulic clamping unit 6
Fig. 1.4 Toggle type clamping unit 6
Fig. 1.5 An injection unit 7
Fig. 3.1 Pictorial View of Injection Moulding Machine 26
Fig. 3.2 Polypropylene(PP) 27
Fig. 3.3 (a, b) The Taguchi Loss-Function and The Traditional Approach 32
Fig. 3.4 (a, b) The Taguchi Loss-Function for LB and HB Characteristics ` 33
Fig. 3.5 Taguchi Experimental Design and Analysis Flow Diagram 37
Fig. 4.1 Main Effects Plot for Means (Short-shots) 46
Fig. 4.2 Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Short-shots) 46
Fig. 4.3 Interaction Plot for Means (Short-shots) 47
Fig. 4.4 Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Short-shots) 47
Fig. 4.5 Residual Plots for Means (Short-shots) 48
Fig. 4.6 Main Effects Plot for Means (Flash) 51
Fig. 4.7 Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Flash) 51
Fig. 4.8 Interaction Plot for Means (Flash) 52
Fig. 4.9 Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Flash) 52
Fig. 4.10 Residual Plots for Means (Flash) 53
Fig. 4.11 Main Effects Plot for Means (Silver-spots) 56
Fig. 4.12 Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Silver-spots) 56
Fig. 4.13 Interaction Plot for Means (Silver-spots) 57
Fig. 4.14 Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Silver-spots) 57
Fig. 4.15 Residual Plots for Means (Silver-spots) 58
Fig. 4.16 Main Effects Plot for Means (Shrinkage) 61
viii
Fig. 4.17 Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Shrinkage) 61
Fig. 4.18 Interaction Plot for Means (Shrinkage) 62
Fig. 4.19 Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Shrinkage) 62
Fig. 4.20 Residual Plots for Means (Shrinkage) 63
Fig. 4.21 Main Effects Plot for Means 66
Fig. 4.22 Main Effects Plot for SN ratios 67
Fig. 4.23 Interaction Plot for Means 67
Fig. 4.24 Interaction Plot for SN ratios 68

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page No.

Table 3.1 Properties of Polypropylene 26

Table 4.1 Process parameters and their levels 40
Table 4.2 L16 Orthogonal Array design for 6 factors at 2 levels 41
Table 4.3 Experimental Results of Short-shots and Flash 42
Table 4.4 Experimental Results of Silver-spots and Shrinkage 43
Table 4.5 Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Short-shots) 45
Table 4.6 Response Table for Means (Short-shots) 45
Table 4.7 General linear Model (ANOVA) for Short-shots 48
Table 4.8 Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Flash) 50
Table 4.9 Response Table for Means (Flash) 50
Table 4.10 General linear Model (ANOVA) for Flash 53
Table 4.11 Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Silver-spots) 55
Table 4.12 Response Table for Means (Silver-spots) 55
Table 4.13 General linear Model (ANOVA) for Silver-spots 58
Table 4.14 Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Shrinkage) 60
Table 4.15 Response Table for Means (Shrinkage) 60
Table 4.16 General linear Model (ANOVA) for Shrinkage 63
Table 4.17 Response of % defectives 65
Table 4.18 Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios 65
Table 4.19 Response Table for Means 66
Table 4.20 Confirmation run results 68

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Symbol Description

PIM Plastic Injection Molding

OA Orthogonal array

S/N Signal to Noise

NB Nominal is best

HB Higher is better

LB Lower is better

L(y) Loss in monetary unit

MS Mean Square (Variance)

MSD Mean square deviation

KN Kilo Newton

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Association

SPI Society of the Plastics Industry

CAD Computer aided design

CAM Computer aided manufacturing

CNC Computer numerical control

ANOVA Analysis of variance

PBT Polybutylene Terephthalate

RMS Response surface methods

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

xi
PP Polypropylene

DOE Design of experiment

LDPE Low Density Polyethylene

CPVC Chlorinated Poly Vinyl Chloride

GRA Grey Relational Analysis

GRG Grey relational grade

IMPP Injection molding process parameters

PC Polycarbonate

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

m Target value for quality characteristic

n Number of units in a given sample

EL Expected loss

DF,DOF Degree of freedom

IM Injection molding

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Injection Moulding is an important manufacturing process used in the case of processing of

polymers. It is a very popular process due to its high production rate. Injection molding is
generally suited for manufacturing large quantities of mass produced plastic parts of complex
shapes and sizes. Optimizing the process parameters of the injection molding process is
critical to enhance productivity and quality of the product. For process optimization,
parameters must operate at optimum levels for acceptable performance and in order to reduce
the defects. In this process, the part is produced by injecting hot melt of plastic into a cold
empty cavity of desired shape called mold. The raw material in granular form is fed into the
machine by means of a hopper, which pre-heats the material and remove the moisture from
the raw material granular. Through the hopper raw material is fed into the barrel. The
material is then heated into the barrel with the help of heaters and maintained at required
temperatures at a different zone. After this process, the molten polymer is injected into the
mold at required pressure from the nozzle. Finally, it is held for given time to cool down and
then with the help of ejector pin, the part is ejected when the mold opens. The mold is
normally made up of Steel or Aluminium depending upon the type of application.
Injection moulding is widely used for manufacturing an infinite variety of parts, from
the smallest components to entire body panels of cars. One of the most outstanding features
of the plastics is the ease with which they can be processed. In some cases semi-finished
articles such as sheets or rods are produced and subsequent fabricated into shape using
conventional methods such as welding or machining. In the majority of the cases, however,
the finished article, which may be quite complex in shape, is produced in a single operation.
The processing stages of heating, shaping and cooling may be continuous or a repeated cycle
of events but in most cases the processes may be automated and so are particularly suitable
for mass production. Parts to be injection moulded must be very carefully designed to
1
facilitate the moulding process usually by an industrial designer or an engineer. The material
used for the part, the desired shape & features of the part, the material of the mould and the
properties of the moulding machine must all be taken into consideration. There are four
factors that affect the quality of moulded parts: part design, mould design, machine
performance and processing conditions. The old trial-and-error process is costly and time
consuming, thus not suitable for complex manufacturing processes. In order to minimize
various defects such as Short-shots, Flash, Silver-spots & Shrinkage in plastic injection
moulding, design of experiment, the Taguchi method is applied. In experimental design,
there are many variable factors that affect the functional characteristics of the product.
Design parameter values that minimize the effect of noise factors on the product’s quality are
determined. In order to find optimum levels, fractional factorial designs using orthogonal
arrays are used. In this way, an optimal set of process parameters conditions can be obtained
from very few experiments.

1.2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

In 1872, John Wesley Hyatt and his brother Isaiah patented an injection molding machine
that used a plunger to inject plastic through a heated cylinder and into a two part mold. The
industry progressed slowly over the years, producing products such as collar stays, buttons,
and hair combs as the hairstyles of the day grew longer.

In 1940, the industry expanded rapidly because World War II created a huge demand for
inexpensive, mass-produced products. In 1946, American inventor James Watson
Hendry built the first screw injection machine and revolutionized the plastics industry which
allowed much more precise control over the speed of injection and the quality of product
produced. This machine made possible to mixed material before injection, so that coloured or
recycled plastic could be added to virgin material and mixed thoroughly before being
injected. The action of the screw also aids the heater bands in the heating of the plastic due to
the friction, thus reducing energy usage. Screw machines nowadays make up roughly 95% of
all injection moulding machines.

2
In the 1970s, James Watson Hendry went on to develop the first gas-assisted injection
moulding process which was used for the production of complex, hollow articles that cooled

rapidly. This greatly improved design flexibility as well as the strength and finish of
manufactured parts while minimizing production time, cost, weight and waste. By 1979,
plastic production overtook steel production, and by 1990, aluminium molds were
extensively used in injection moulding.

1.3 INJECTION MOLDING MACHINERY

The injection machine is a machine that melt the molding material inside the heating cylinder
and inject this into the mold tool to create the molded product by solidifying inside it. An
injection moulding machine produces components by injection moulding process. The
earliest injection moulding machines were of the plunger type and there are still many of
these machines in use today. A pre-determined quantity of moulding material drops from the
feed hopper into the barrel. The plunger then conveys the material along the barrel where it is
heated by the conduction from the external heaters. The material is then plasticized under
pressure so that it may be forced through the nozzle into the mould cavity. In order to split up
the mass of the material in the barrel and improve the heat transfer, a torpedo is fitted in the
barrel. But there are few disadvantages in this type of machine i.e. it is difficult to produce
consistent moldings. The main problems are:
1. There is little mixing or homogenization of the molten plastic.
2. It is difficult to meter accurately the shot size. Since metering is on a volume basis, any
variation in the density of the material will alter the shot weight.
3. Since the plunger is compressing material which is in a variety of forms the pressure at the
nozzle can vary quite considerably from cycle to cycle.
4. The presence of the torpedo causes a significant pressure loss.
5. The flow properties of the melt are pressure sensitive and since the pressure is erratic, this
amplifies the variability in mould filling.
Few of these disadvantages of the plunger machine may be overcome by using a pre-
plasticizing system. This type of machine has two barrels. Raw material is fed into the first
barrel where an extruder screw or plunger plasticizes the material and feeds it through a
3
non-return valve into the other barrel. A plunger in the second barrel then forces the melt
through a nozzle and into the mould. In this system there is much better homogenization
because the melt has to pass through the small opening connection the two barrels. The shot
size can also be metered more accurately since the volume of the material fed into the second
barrel can be controlled by a limit switch on its plunger. Another advantage is that there is no
longer a need for the torpedo on the main injection cylinder. But this type of machine is
seldom used because it is considerably more complicated and more expensive than
necessary.
Nowadays the market is dominated by the reciprocating screw type of the injection moulding
machine. This was a major breakthrough in machine design and yet the principle is simple.
An extruder type screw in a heated barrel performs a dual role. On the one hand it rotates in
the normal way to transport, melt and pressurize the material in the barrel but it is also
capable of moving forward like a plunger to inject melt into the mould. Most commonly used
machines are hydraulically powered in-line screw machines.

1.4 COMPONENTS OF INJECTION MOLDING MACHINERY

The main units of a typical injection moulding machine are the clamping unit, the
plasticizing unit, and the drive unit; they are shown in Fig. 1.1. The clamping unit holds the
mould. It is capable of closing, clamping, and opening the mould. Its main components are
the fixed and moving plates, the tie bars and the mechanism for opening, closing and
clamping. The injection unit or plasticizing unit melts the plastic and injects it into the
mould. The drive unit provides power to the plasticizing unit and clamping unit. Injection
moulding machines are often classified by the maximum clamp force that the machine can
generate. This is the force that pushes the two mold halves together to avoid opening of the
mould due to internal pressure of the plastic melt in the mould. The clamping force of typical
injection moulding machines range from 200 to 100,000 kN.

1.4.1 Clamping unit

The clamping units are required to enable mounting and holding of the two mould halves.
They must also provide sufficient clamping force during injection and cooling to enable
effective moulding. The mould halves must also open and close accurately and smoothly to
4
 Figure 1.1: Injection Moulding process

hydraulics, a hydraulic and toggle combination or by electrical power. The clamping units on
injection moulding machines use hydraulic force.
Figure 1.2 shows a clamping unit. The stationary platen is attached to the machine
with four tie rods connecting it to the movable platen. Figure 1.3 shows a direct hydraulic
clamping system The clamp ram moves the moving platen until it reaches the stationary

Figure 1.2: A Clamping unit

5
platen and the pressure begins to build up. The ejectors are fitted onto the moving platen and
can be activated once the tool is opened and the moving platen retracted.

Figure 1.3: Direct hydraulic clamping unit

A toggle type clamping unit is shown in Figure 1.4. This design enables the force to be
amplified. It is basically two metal bars attached by a pivot. One end is attached to the
stationary plate, the other to the movable platen. When open it forms a distinctive ‘V’
configuration and when closed the bars form a straight line. The advantage in this design is
that a much smaller force from the hydraulic cylinder is required. A further advantage of the
toggle machines is that once extended the toggles remain there until retracted making them
self-locking. The hydraulic system on the other hand requires the application of constant line
pressure. The disadvantages are that it is more difficult to control the speed and force of a
toggle mechanism. It must also be adjusted for different depths of mould tool to ensure that
the toggle is fully extended.

Figure 1.4: Toggle type clamping unit

6
1.4.2 Injection Unit
The first aim of the plastication stage is to produce a homogeneous melt for the next stage
where the material enters the mould. A second important function of the injection unit is the
actual injection into the mould. Here, it is important that injection speeds are reproducible as
slight changes can cause variations in the end product. An injection unit is shown in Figure
1.5.
There are two different injection units available.
1. Piston (Plunger) Injection Unit
2. Reciprocating Screw Piston Injection Unit

Figure 1.5: An injection unit

1. Piston (Plunger) Injection Unit

The design of this unit was based on a method used to mould rubber. Material is metered by
a dosage device and transported through the heated plasticizing cylinder until it is in front of
the plunger at the correct temperature. The material residence time in the cylinder is very
long, making this method unsuitable for heat sensitive material such as rigid PVC and
7
thermosets. This type of machine is not widely used as it was replaced by the reciprocating
screw piston injection unit.
2. Reciprocating Screw Piston Injection Unit
This is the most common type of unit. Thermoplastics as well as thermosets and classical
elastomers can be processed with screw piston injection units with the process In the screw
piston injection unit, the material is plasticized and dosed simultaneously. The design of a
plasticizing screw has several advantages over a piston type mainly in the ability to produce a
homogeneous melt as a result of mixing. The flow of the material is also improved as shear
from the screw lowers the viscosity of the material. The long residence times present in the
piston type machines are eliminated allowing heat sensitive materials such as PVC to be
processed. The screw is also easier to purge and less prone to degradation or material hang-
ups.

1.4.3 Drive Unit

The function of the drive unit in injection molding machine is to transmit the power from
electric motor to the various moving parts of the machine, and to control the power. An
electrical control system regulates the hydraulic system(drive unit) to control the direction,
force, speed, and sequence of the machine cycle. The hydraulic fluids transmits the power
throughout the hydraulic system, and lubricates the pumps and valves. It is important to
follow the recommendations of the machine manufacturer or the hydraulic-equipment
supplier in selecting the fluid to be used. The hydraulic lines form passageways in which the
fluid from one component to the other in the circuit. The lines may be seamless steel tubes,
hoses, or the hydraulic oil may flow through drilled manifolds. The reservoir is simply a
storage tank for the hydraulic fluid. In addition, it helps to keep the fluid clean by allowing
contaminants to settle out, and it also minimizes turbulence, and dissipates heat.

1.5 BASIC PRINCIPLE OF INJECTION MOLDING

The principle of injection molding is very simple. The plastic material is heated until it
becomes a viscous melt. It is then forced into a closed mold that defines the shape of the
article to be produced. There the material is cooled until it reverts to a solid, then the mold is
8
opened and the finished part is extracted. First, put plastics material into the hopper. If the
resin requires pre-drying, the hopper dryer which is attached to the hopper can be used to
pre-dry the resin. Once the resin is in the hopper, it is supplied to the inside of the heating
cylinder. Then, the screw in the heating cylinder pushes the resin to the head of the cylinder
in a process called ‘feeding’. With required injection pressure and injection speed, the melted
material flows into the inside of the mold rapidly to form a product. After a designated time,
the molds are opened automatically and a product is made.

1.6 IMPORTANCE OF INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS IN PRESENT DAY

MANUFACTURING
Today’s plastic injection molding industry is unique, because over 30 million tons of
plastic are manufactured yearly. In addition to that, there are more than 60,000 different
types of plastic, so this is probably a very daunting industry for manufacturers.
Thankfully, plastic injection molding is more diverse due to innovative resins like Nylon
6/6, K Resin and Styrene; alongside imaginative additives such as color and ultraviolet
inhibitors. Needless to say, injection molding is an extremely tedious business, because
molds must be meticulously constructed in order to properly facilitate the molding
process. In the case of plastic, horizontal injection mold machines have generally bee n
the tool of the trade since the 1980s. Nowadays, the advent of efficient hybrids and
vertical mold machines enable the plastics injection mold industry to manufacture
practically any shape and size item. Even though machines actually do the molding, ther e
is always the potential of injury for the human machine operators. Fortunately, today’s
injection and blow molding machines are considerably safer due to incredible features
like hydraulics and robotic controls; as well as strict regulations imposed by the
Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), Society of the Plastics Industry
(SPI), and American National Standards Institute.
Although the plastics injection industry is better these days, the primary concern with
manufacturing this material circumvents around its inability to safely decompose into the
environment. That is why for the last several decades, lots of revenue has been invested

9
in making plastic more environment friendly, throughmethods such as recycling.
In the early years, injection molding techniques were essentially unchanged, so
hazards like contamination were highly possible from the polymers and petrochemicals
that make up plastic. Now, plastics are much safer for edibles, due to the advancements in
materials, food preservation, and packaging.
Current injection molding methods are more environment friendly, because of
efficient machinery and durable thermosetting polymers capable of withstanding abuse,
and extreme temperatures. More importantly, the greatest asset of plastics is probably its
lifespan. This pertains to the fact that modern day plastics are made to endure the wear
and tear of dishwashers and microwave ovens. Obviously there will always be reasons for
and against the use of plastics, but the pros undoubtedly outweigh the cons.

1.7 ADVANTAGES OF INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS

Injection moulding is extremely versatile method of producing parts and products. It is one of
the preferred methods for manufacturing parts because it has multiple advantages over other
methods of plastic molding. Not only is plastic injection molding simpler and more reliable,
it is also extremely efficient. You should have no doubts about using this method to
manufacture parts. Here are 10 major advantages of using injection molding for
manufacturing plastic parts and components.

1. Detailed Features and Complex Geometry

The injection molds are subjected to extremely high pressure. As a result the plastic within
the molds is pressed harder against the mold compared to any other molding process. Due to
this excessively high pressure, it is possible to add a large amount of details into the design of
the part. Furthermore, due to high pressure during the molding process, complex and intricate
shapes can easily be designed and manufactured which otherwise would have been too
complicated and expensive to manufacture.

2. High Efficiency
Once the injection molds have been designed to the customer’s specifications and the presses

10
pre-programmed, the actual molding process is very quick compared to other methods of
molding. Plastic injection molding process hardly takes times and this allows more parts to
be manufactured from a single mold. The high production output rate makes plastic injection
molding more cost effective and efficient. Typically, hot-runner ejection mold
systems produce parts with more consistent quality and do so with faster cycle times, but it’s
not as easy to change colors nor can hot runners accommodate some heat-sensitive polymers.

3. Enhanced Strength
In plastic injection molding, it is possible to use fillers in the injection molds. These filler
reduce the density of the plastic while it being molded and also help in adding greater
strength to the part after it has been molded. In fields where parts need to be strong and
durable, plastic injection has an option that other molding processes do not offer.

4. Ability to Use Multiple Plastic Types Simultaneously

One of the major advantages of using plastic injection molding for manufacturing parts is the
ability to use different types of plastic simultaneously. This can be done with the help of co-
injection molding, which takes away the worry about using a specific type of plastic.

5. Automation to Save Manufacturing Costs

Plastic injection molding is an automated process. A majority of the injection molding
process is performed by machines and robotics which a sole operator can control and
manage. Automation helps to reduce manufacturing costs, as the overheads are significantly
reduced. Furthermore, with reduced labor force the overall cost of manufacturing the parts is
reduced and this cost saving can easily be passed on to the customer. Furthermore,
automation allows for making precise and accurate injection molds. Computer aided design
(CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) allow close tolerances during the making
of the molds.

11
1.8 DISADVANTAGES OF INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS

1. High Initial Cost

Often, several rounds of designing and modeling are needed before the go-ahead or
production is given. Then, the injection moulding tool needed to make the mouldings will
need designing & manufacturing. The mould tool is an intricate piece of work which costs
manpower, material and many machining hours to make and represents the largest cost in
getting injection mouldings. Of course, once it's all done, part cost is very low and
repeatability very high for hundreds of thousands of mouldings.

2. Initial lead time

From product conception to final part can take months of design, testing and tool
manufacturing. That said, if you know what you want, you can have the finished
mouldings within 6 weeks. (Tool craft’s Chinese Mould Tools Flowchart shows how
that could work). And as mentioned under advantages, once the tool exists, it takes very
little time to run the mouldings, especially when you have a multi-impression mould
tool.

3. Large Part Size Limitations

Huge machines are needed to make plastic injection mouldings. Very large parts need an
enormous mould tool and become very expensive to make, in which case a process
like Plastic Fabrication may be a better choice, depending on the type of product needed.

4. Careful design needed

Plastic mouldings need very careful design to avoid tooling issues like undercuts, locked-in
features. The material and temperature will need to be taken into account in wall design,
otherwise the mould may not fill fully. The placement of ejectors and cooling lines will need
to be considered to ensure the product is aesthetically pleasing.

12
1.9 APPLICATIONS OF INJECTION MOULDING PROCESS
The injection moulding process makes it possible to manufacture very complex plastic parts
of good quality. Examples of such parts include functional and housing parts for automotive
components, electronic and medical equipment and general consumer goods. A general trend
toward miniaturization can be recognized in connection with parts of this type. The materials
spectrum ranges from relatively hard plastics for housing parts to soft plastics with rubber-
like properties. The production areas of injection moulding plants are often highly automated
and operated in four shifts. It therefore makes sense to automate the inspection process as
well by integrating robots and pallet systems in four-shift operation in the production
process. One key aspect regarding the use of measuring machines in plastics processing is the
final inspection of products. Functional dimensions such as the distance of detents, sealing
grooves and connector latches with tolerances of only several tens of micrometers and less
are checked. Tactile measuring processes are often ruled out in such cases due to the large
dimensions of the stylus tips and the excessive probing forces involved. For this reason,
optical measurement is often the only possible way to check dimensional accuracy. A
combination of image processing and autofocus sensor technology is used here. Problems are
often caused by forms typical for plastic parts including mould release slopes and rounded-
off corners. Depending on the color involved, sufficient contrast is sometimes difficult to
achieve. An optimally flexible illuminating system is therefore a precondition for
successfully measuring such workpieces with optical sensors.The second main area of
application in the injection moulding process is the measurement of injection moulding tools
and the erosion electrodes required to manufacture them. Due to the current trend favouring
shorter product cycle times, it is becoming increasingly important to perform these
inspections before beginning production. Once the injection moulding process has been
started, any subsequent correction would take too much time. Due to shrinkage and other
influences of the injection moulding process, the tool dimensions often do not agree exactly
with the parts dimensions. Moreover, a much higher accuracy is required. A part tolerance of
several tens of micrometers and a tool tolerance of several micrometers typically result in
maximum measuring uncertainty requirements as low as 1 µm and less for the coordinate
measuring machines used .
13
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A number of research is being carried out to understand and identify the effect of plastic
injection moulding process parameters on the quality of the plastic product. It is much
difficult to set optimal process parameter levels in order to meet customer requirements and
expectations regarding productivity, quality and performance of the product at a competitive
price. Till today lot of optimization techniques were used to control the plastic injection
process parameters which effects the moulding processes. Some of the prior research articles
are as under:

Gurjeet Singh et. al. [1], the aim of the authors of this article is to minimize the warpage
defect by controlling the process parameter. The process parameters which were studied by
the authors namely melt temperature, mould temperature, packing pressure, packing time and
cooling time. They used Taguchi approach to find out optimal parameter setting. From the
result it was concluded that the ability of this approach to predict Sink depth for various
combination of processing variables with in design space.

T. Mohan Kumar et. al. [2], studied the effect of various injection moulding process
parameters on the volumetric shrinkage and fill time of a Polypropylene chair bottom cap
part. In this paper the authors investigated the most significant parameter causing high
volumetric shrinkage and optimized the process parameters through Taguchi L9 orthogonal
array design and analysis of variance (ANOVA) method. Four process parameters were
considered in this research: injection pressure, cooling time, melt temperature and mold
temperature. They found that the injection pressure, melt temperature were most significant
factors for volumetric shrinkage. Like that for fill time melt temperature and injection
pressure were most critical factors for product.

14
Dr. Hari Vasudevan et. al. [3], in this Paper the authors presented the application of
Taguchi Method on the process parameters of Injection Moulding of Polybutylene
Terephthalate (PBT). The effect of process parameters, such as Injection Pressure, Injection
Time, Cooling Time, Suckback Pressure, Zone 1 Temperature & Zone 2 Temperature (Barrel
Temperatures) on Dark Spots and Short Shots (defects) were investigated using the
Orthogonal Array L16 of Taguchi Method for 6 factors at 2 levels each with the response
being percent defectives. They showed that Injection Pressure, Injection Time & Zone 1
Temperature had a major effect on the response and they also confirmed from their
investigation, the rejection rate reduced from 11.33% to 5.84%.

Sreedharan J and A. K Jeevanantham [4], in this study the authors tried to optimize the
molding process parameters in order to reduce the molding defects like shrinkage by using
Taguchi’s experimental design and the analysis of variance methods. The process parameters
considered by the authors namely melt temperature, packing pressure, Injection Pressure and
cooling time. From the observation using S/N ratio it was revealed that the Melt temperature
plays a major role in shrinkage reduction on the moulded part.

T Kiatcharoenpol et. al. [5], attempted to study process parameters of Plastic injection
molding and optimize the process parameters to improve quality characteristic of work-piece.
Taguchi’s orthogonal array (L16) was applied to conduct experiments. The two responses
obtained from the experiment are volume shrinkage and total displacement. They concluded
that there are three statistically major factors out of seven factors or process parameters
(Filling time, Melt temperature, Maximum injection pressure, Mold temperature, packing
time, Maximum packing pressure and Cooling time). The three significant factors are Melt
temperature, packing time and Cooling time.

Ramkumar Ramakrishnan et. al. [6], in this research article the authors studied the effect
of various injection molding process parameters on the volumetric shrinkage of a acetal
polymer gear part, identifying the most significant parameter causing high volumetric
shrinkage. Here the Taguchi orthogonal array design and analysis of variance (ANOVA)
method were used to optimize the process parameters.

15
The process parameters selected by the authors in this study were Melt temperature (⁰C),
Mold temperature (⁰C), Packing pressure (MPa), Packing time (sec) and Cooling time (sec).
It was observed that the melt temperature does influence the volumetric shrinkage followed
by the packing pressure.

Sokkalingam Rajalingam et. al. [7], studied the process parameters setting to minimize
shrinkage defect for plastic cell phone housing made by poly carbonate material. In their
study they used Response surface methods (RMS) to identify most significant parameters.
They considered mold temperature, injection pressure and screw rotation speed. Authors
found from their observation that the shrinkage defect can be reduced with the optimal
setting obtained by RMS.

J.A.M. Agnelli et. al. [8], presented optimization of injection molding process parameters
for sisa-glass fibre hybrid biocomposite by using Taguchi method. The six process
parameters namely melt temperature, mould temperature, injection pressure, holding
pressure, holding time and cooling time were included by the authors. Taguchi orthogonal
array L18 was applied to run the experiments, and analysis of variance was then used to
identify the significant process factors. On their analysis, they consider that the injection
pressure had a significant influence on the shrinkage.

Harshal P. Kale et. al. [9], in this paper the authors had studied the effects of plastic
injection moulding process parameters and optimize the parameters to reduce shrinkage.
Here the Taguchi’s and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to optimize the process
parameters for High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Material. The selected process parameters
in this study were Melting temperature, Injection Pressure, Packing Pressure and cooling
Time. The result showed that melt temperature is the most significant parameter.

Anand Kr Dwiwedi et. al. [10], in the study of processing parameters on injection moulding
process they consider injection pressure, Processing temperature, cooling time and injection
speed as a process parameter which affect the strength of material polypropylene(PP). They
found that Processing Temperature significantly affect the tensile strength of material.

16
Y. P. Tidke et. al. [11], the aim of the authors of this paper was to review the research of the
practical use of Taguchi method in the optimization of processing parameters for injection
moulding with various approaches including Signal to noise ratio. On their review, they
consider the most affecting factors is the melting temperature, packing time and packing
Pressure which affect the quality of the product. They suggest that gate location, cooling time
and direction of polish, these are factors which effect the warpage of the plastic material.

Yi-qi Wang et. al. [12], presented Taguchi optimization method to find the optimal plastic
Injection Moulding process parameters for improving compression strength. The authors
consider number of gates, gate size, resin temperature, molding temperature, switch over by
volume filled, switch over injection pressure and curing time factor effect on compression
strength for manufacturing a brake booster valve body. From the results it was concluded that
the molding temperature plays a vital role for improving compression strength.

Mohd. Muktar Alam et. al. [13], in their work they find optimal injection moulding
condition in order to reduce shrinkage. The material namely Polypropylene was considered
to perform various observation. They applied the DOE technique of Taguchi method by
optimizing the plastic injection moulding process parameters like Melt temperature, Injection
Pressure, Packing Pressure and Packing time. The authors concluded that the packing
pressure was the most effective factor for reducing the shrinkage of the material.

Sajjan Kumar Lal et. al. [14], in this paper the authors made an attempt to investigate the
effects of plastic injection moulding process parameters on shrinkage of Low Density
Polyethylene (LDPE) material. They used Taguchi approach to find out optimal parameter
setting and to reduce shrinkage. The process parameters were considered in this research:
melting temperature, injection pressure, refilling pressure and cooling time. From the result
the cooling time found most influential parameter followed by refilling pressure and injection
pressure was found to be the least effective factor.

Wu-Lin Chen et. al. [15], to find the optimal combinations of process parameters for a
digital camera thin cover. In this work, warpage, shrinkage and volumetric shrinkages of
plastic parts were usually considered as their quality indices.

17
Moldflow and Solid works are used to simulate the injection molding process and to create
the part’s geometry, respectively. Taguchi’s orthogonal array L27 is applied to perform the
experiments, and analysis of variance is then used to obtain the significant process factors out
of nine parameters namely injection time, cooling time, injection pressure, packing time,
packing pressure, cooling temperature, mold open time, mold temperature and melt
temperature.

Kalpit Jain et. al. [16], in this article the authors reviewed the practical use of Taguchi
method in the optimization of processing parameters for injection moulding. After reviewing
the articles on optimization of plastic injection moulding process parameters for plastic
material, the author found that the orthogonal arrays of Taguchi, the signal-to-noise (S/N)
ratio are utilized to find the optimal levels and effect of process parameters are determined by
many researchers on shrinkage & warpage.

Sanjay N. Lahoti et. al. [17], has done study to determine the optimal process parameter
settings which influences productivity, quality, and cost of production in the plastic injection
molding (PIM) industry. The experimentation will be done for three different thermoplastic
materials with at least two varieties in each. They develop a methodology to manufacture
defects free parts by controlling the initial process parameters settings. The parameters were
considered in this work: melt temperature, injection pressure, packing pressure, packing time,
cooling temperature, injection velocity, injection time, cooling time, etc.

Ng Chin Fei et. al. [18], in an attempt to review the research in the optimization of
processing parameters for injection moulding the methodology was taken as taguchi method.
The Taguchi robust parameter design has been widely used to solve various single response
process parameter designs. However, the authors found that there is no single technique that
appears to be superior in solving different types of problem.

Dragan Kusic et. al. [19], in the study of processing parameters on injection moulding
process they consider six parameters namely Melt temperature, injection speed, packing time,
Injection pressure, packing pressure and Cooling time which effect post-moulding shrinkage
and warping of parts.

18
They did their analysis on polyethylene filled with calcium carbonate. Here an optical 3D
scanner was used by the authors to scan each test specimen for accuracy. They showed that
the packing pressure has significant factor which affect most.

Rishi Pareek et. al. [20], in this paper the authors considered the tea plate of plastic product
to define suitable parameters in producing plastic product. On their analysis, they consider
the tensile strength by taking process parameters injection pressure, melting temperature,
cooling time and Polycarbonate as a material. They obtained an optimum value or the best
value of injection pressure, melting temperature and cooling time by using Taguchi and
ANOVA.

M.G. Rathi et. al. [21], did investigation on the effects of Back Pressure, Mould Closing
Speed, Mould Pressure and injection pressure on the quality Characteristic of Chlorinated
Poly Vinyl Chloride (CPVC) material. In this experimental work the authors find the
optimum level of factors by DOE technique of Taguchi and the analysis of variance methods.
Form the ANOVA results the authors found that the mould closing speed had significant
effect on quality characteristic.

Fatma Hentati et. al. [22], used Taguchi method to find out the optimal injection molding
parameters in order to reduce the occurrence of defects and get better shear stress on
(polycarbonate/ acrylonitrile-butadiene styrene) PC/ABS-injected parts. In this study the
experiment was conducted by using the Orthogonal Array L9 of Taguchi Method for 4
factors at 3 levels. The parameters considered were material temperature, holding time ,
injection pressure and mold temperature. The authors found that the injection pressure was
the most influential parameter on the shear stress for the PC/ABS-injected parts.

Nur Fatihah Kamarudin et. al. [23], in this article the authors studied about the Taguchi
Method Used in Optimization of Plastic Injection Molding. They found that Taguchi method
is one of the important methods that use to identify and select the parameter that can cause
the defect of a product.

19
This method is able to reduce the defect and also able to decrease the cost of making the
product.It is used process of optimization of injection molding by choosing the most
influence parameters which are mold temperature, melt temperature, packing pressure and
packing time. This method is able to reduce the time taken in creating new product and
testing it. It is able to reduce the cost and improve the quality of injection molding process.
Taguchi method also provides robust design solutions. It can optimize several factors
simultaneously.

Yucheng Zhong et. al. [24], has done study on the various optimization techniques for
optimization of plastic injection molding process parameters. The different efficient
optimization methodology which were studied by the authors are Taguchi method, response
surface method and NSGA-II is proposed to optimize the multi-objective problem in fiber-
reinforced composite injection molding process. The design parameters considered were
Fiber content, Fiber aspect ratio, injection pressure, melt temperature and cooling time. The
warpage, residual stress and volumetric shrinkage are considered as the quality objectives.
From their study the authors had concluded that the influence of fiber parameters is very
important on the part quality. In particular, fiber parameters are the significant influential
factors on product warpage and residual stress.

Noorfa Idayu et. al. [25], presented an optimization of injection molding parameters on
mechanical properties of plastic part using Taguchi method and Grey Relational Analysis
(GRA) approach. Taguchi orthogonal array L9 was used as the experimental design. The
authors consider mold temperature, melt temperature, cooling time and injection time as
injection molding parameters. The authors found that the grey relational grade (GRG)
increases by using optimum parameter setting about 0.6 per cent. Further, the result shows
that mold temperature of 62˚C, melt temperature of 280˚C, injection time of 0.70sec and
cooling time 15.4sec are optimum multi objective process setting. In addition, ANOVA
result shows that the cooling time is the most influenced factor that affects the mechanical
properties of plastic part followed by mold temperature and melt temperature.

20
Hatta N.M et. al. [26], in this paper the author aims to review the research of the practical
use of Taguchi method to minimize the shrinkage defects at the thick plate part.The authors
were realized that the injection molding can be seen as one of the most important parts of the
manufacturing industry. Other than knowing the techniques, the process of improvement of
the optimization techniques which can develop a better result of minimizing the defects also
can be done in the future.

Junhui Liu et. al. [27], presented Multiobjective Optimization of Injection Molding Process
Parameters for the Precision Manufacturing of Plastic Optical Lens. The orthogonal
experiment was carried out with the Taguchi method, and the results were analyzed by
ANOVA to find out the Injection molding process parameters(IMPP) having a significant
effect on the objectives. The optimization will be done by applying the nondominated sorting
genetic algorithm(NSGA-II) , with the built M-SVR models as the fitness function of the
objectives , to obtain a Pareto-optimal set, which improved the quality of plastic optical lens
comprehensively. The authors found that the optimization method has high accuracy.

J.A.M. Agnelli et. al. [28], in this study the authors optimize the injection molding process
parameters in order to reduce shrinkage of sisal-glass fiber hybrid biocomposite by using
Taguchi’s experimental design and the analysis of variance methods. The six process
parameters considered by the authors namely melt temperature, packing pressure, Injection
Pressure, Holding time, mold temperature and cooling time. Orthogonal array L18 with a
mixed-level design and signal-to-noise (S/N) of smaller-the-better was used to perform the
experiments. From the ANOVA analysis it was revealed that the Injection Pressure had a
significant influence on shrinkage.

Wen-Chin Chen et. al. [29], proposes a systematic optimization model of process
parameters in plastic injection molding (PIM). First of all, the Taguchi method is used for
experimentation and data analysis, in which the quality characteristics for the plastic
injection product are length and warpage. The process parameters are melt temperature,
injection velocity, packing pressure, packing time, and cooling time.

21
Moreover, the signal-to-noise(S/N) ratio and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are employed to
obtain a combination of parameter settings. Experimental data are set for the response surface
methodology (RSM) to analyze and create two quality predictors and two S/N ratio
predictors. The two quality predictors are associated with genetical gorithms (GA) to find out
an optimal combination of process parameters that meets multiple-objective quality
characteristics. At last, four predictors are combined with the hybrid GA-PSO to find the
final optimal combination of process parameters. The confirmation results concluded that the
proposed model not only enhances the stability in the injection molding process, including
the quality in length and warpage, but also reduces the costs of and time spent in the PIM
process.

Satadru Kashyap et. al. [30], did review of different techniques employed till date for
optimizing various injection molding parameters along with their advantages and limitations.
They also discussed how the earlier trial and error methods, based on the experiences and
instincts of molding operators, have been regularly improved for better and precise prediction
of different input and output parameters by optimizing injection molding through formal
techniques developed by exploiting the advancement of technology and soaring thoughts.
Moreover, various drawbacks, faced by the proposed approaches in their practical
implementations, are also discussed. At the end, some future research scopes in the area of
injection molding process optimization are suggested.

Shih-Chih Nian et. al. [31], in this paper the authors describes about the reduction of
Warpage through local mold temperature settings for a cooling system that can prevent
severe warpage in an asymmetric plastic cover for handheld communication devices. The
neutral axis theory is used to find out the temperature distribution in the cross section of a
part, and then predict the warping trend. Through simulation and experiments performed in
this study, the feasibility of using an effective local mold temperature setting in a cooling
system to reduce part Warpage was verified. The simulation and experimental results
revealed that the straightness of the warpage area in parts fabricated using local mold
temperature settings can be improved substantially .

22
Songtao Zhang et. al. [32], in this study statistical tools were used to develop a model which
relates injection molding process variables to part quality. A statistically based model
predictive control algorithm was developed for controlling part quality along with
manipulated variables coolant flow rate and coolant temperature. This approach replaces the
need of off-line quality measurement and provides real-time injection modeling quality
control. The proposed scheme is not depend on process variable type and can be easily
extend to include other process variables such as polymer condition or process parameter
profiles. Moreover, the scheme can be readily accepted for other model based predictive
control algorithms. Overall this methodology answers the need for adaptable on-line quality
control.

Radhwan Hussin et. al. [33], in this study, analysis of injection molding process parameters
was carried out to minimizing warpage defect on Polycarbonate/Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene (PC/ABS) thermoplastic and simulates the injection molding process using
Moldflow Plastic Insight software (MPI). Taguchi’s Method and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) has been implemented to analyze and optimize the processing parameters such as
mold temperature, melt temperature, packing time, packing pressure, cooling time, cooling
temperature, ambient temperature and runner size. According to results, it may be concluded
that Taguchi method was successfully help to solve the problem to optimize the parameters
within each levels. Computer simulation and taguchi method provides an efficient and
economical way of replacing the traditional method of trial and error.

M. V. Kavade et. al. [34], presented an optimization of injection molding parameters of

Polypropylene by using Taguchi Methodology. The design of experiment (D.O.E.) chosen
for the injection Molding is Taguchi L18 orthogonal array. The seven parameters to be
considered for the robust parameter design are: Barrel Temperature, Injection Pressure,
Injection Speed, Holding Pressure, Holding Time, Cooling Time and Coolant Flow Rate.
From their study the authors found that an optimal parameter combination, capable of
producing desired quality of the product in a relatively lesser time, the Taguchi methodology
has been characteristically successful.

23
S.H. Tang et al. [35], in this research article the authors made an attempt to investigate the
effects of plastic injection moulding process parameters like, packing pressure, melt
temperature, packing time and filling time on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene(ABS) plastic
material to reduce the warpage defect. In this experimental research the authors fabricate a
mould that produced a thin plastic plate of dimensions 120mm X 50mm and 1mm thickness.
Here the Taguchi’s optimization technique was used for testing the effective process
parameters in warpage problem. The confirmation result shows that the melt temperature was
the most effective factor and the filling time only slightly influenced on warpage defect.

24
 CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

3.1 MACHINE TOOL

The experiments were carried out on an Injection Moulding Machine (350 Ton) of
Ferromatic Milacron India Pvt. Ltd. installed at Raghav Lifestyle Products unit-II, plot no.-
111-112, sector-53, phase-v, Kundli Sonepat, Haryana, India. The injection moulding
machine (Figure 3.1) has the following specifications:

Clamp Force : 3500 KN

Clamp Stroke : 675 mm

Tie Rod Diameter : 130 mm

Ejector Stroke : 200 mm

Ejector Force : 70 KN

Minimum Mould Height : 300 mm

Maximum Mould Height : 800 mm

Platen Size (H×V) : 1030×1030 mm

Injection Pressure Max. : 1941 bar

Injection Screw stroke : 280 mm

Screw Diameter : 60 mm

Screw Speed : 295 rpm

Electric Motor : 25.1 KW

Total Oil Capacity : 630 L

25
 Figure 3.1: Pictorial View of Injection Moulding Machine

3.2 MOULDING MATERIAL

Polypropylene(PP) thermoplastic material was selected as the molding material for this
experiment. Polypropylene(PP) were used as a tough and semi-crystalline polymer produced
from the combination of propene (or propylene) monomers. The chemical formula of
propylene is (C3H6)n. Polypropylene is among the cheapest plastics available today and is one
of the top three widely used polymers also. PP has high flexural strength, relatively slippery
surface, very resistant to absorbing moisture and good chemical resistance. The general
properties of PP are shown in table 1.

Table 3.1: Properties of Polypropylene

Property Value

Density (g/cm3 ) 0.91-0.94

Modulus of elasticity, E (MPa) 1340
Poisson’s Ratio, ν 0.392
Specific Heat, Cp (J/kg˚C) 3100

Thermal conductivity, K (w/m˚C) 0.17

26
Figure 3.2: Polypropylene(PP)

3.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY

A scientific approach to plan the experiments is a necessity for efficient conduct of
experiments. By the statistical design of experiments the process of planning the experiment
is carried out, so that appropriate data will be collected and analyzed by statistical methods
resulting in valid and objective conclusions. When the problem involves data that are
subjected to experimental error, statistical methodology is the only objective approach to
analysis. Thus, there are two aspects of an experimental problem: the design of the
experiments and the statistical analysis of the data. These two points are closely related since
the method of analysis depends directly on the design of experiments employed. The
advantages of design of experiments are as follows:
 Numbers of trials is significantly reduced.
 Important decision variables which control and improve the performance of
the product or the process can be identified.
 Optimal setting of the parameters can be found out.
 Qualitative estimation of parameters can be made.

27
3.3.1 Taguchi’s Philosophy
Taguchi’s comprehensive system of quality engineering is one of the greatest engineering
achievements of the 20th century. His methods focus on the effective application of
engineering strategies rather than advanced statistical techniques. It includes both upstream
and shop-floor quality engineering. Upstream methods efficiently use small-scale
experiments to reduce variability and remain cost-effective, and robust designs for large-
scale production and market place. Shop-floor techniques provide cost based, real time
methods for monitoring and maintaining quality in production. The farther upstream a quality
method is applied, the greater leverages it produces on the improvement, and the more it
reduces the cost and time.
Taguchi proposes an “off-line” strategy for quality improvement as an alternative to
an attempt to inspect quality into a product on the production line. He observes that poor
quality cannot be improved by the process of inspection, screening and salvaging. No amount
of inspection can put quality back into the product. Taguchi recommends a three-stage
process: system design, parameter design and tolerance design (Ross, 1988, Roy, 1990). In
the present work Taguchi’s parameter design approach is used to study the effect of process
parameters on the various responses of the Injection Molding process.

3.3.2 Experimental Design Strategy

Taguchi recommends orthogonal array (OA) for laying out of experiments. These OA’s are
generalized Graeco-Latin squares. To design an experiment is to select the most suitable OA
and to assign the parameters and interactions of interest to the appropriate columns. The use
of linear graphs and triangular tables suggested by Taguchi makes the assignment of
parameters simple. The array forces all experimenters to design almost identical experiments
(Roy, 1990).
The optimum condition is identified by studying the main effects of each of the
parameters. The main effects indicate the general trends of influence of each parameter. The
knowledge of contribution of individual parameters is a key in deciding the nature of control
to be established on a production process.

28
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the statistical treatment most commonly applied to the
results of the experiments in determining the percent contribution of each parameter against a
stated level of confidence. Study of ANOVA table for a given analysis helps to determine
which of the parameters need control (Ross, 1988).

Taguchi suggests (Roy, 1990) two different routes to carry out the complete analysis.
First, the standard approach, where the results of a single run or the average of repetitive runs
are processed through main effect and ANOVA analysis (Raw data analysis). The second
approach which Taguchi strongly recommends for multiple runs is to use signal- to- noise
ratio (S/N) for the same steps in the analysis. The S/N ratio is a concurrent quality metric
linked to the loss function (Barker, 1990). By maximizing the S/N ratio, the loss associated
can be minimized. The S/N ratio determines the most robust set of operating conditions from
variation within the results. The S/N ratio is treated as a response (transform of raw data) of
the experiment. Taguchi recommends (Ross, 1988) the use of outer OA to force the noise
variation into the experiment i.e. the noise is intentionally introduced into experiment.
However, processes are often times subject to many noise factors that in combination,
strongly influence the variation of the response. For extremely ‘noisy’ systems, it is not
generally necessary to identify specific noise factors and to deliberately control them during
experimentation. It is sufficient to generate repetitions at each experimental condition of the
controllable parameters and analyze them using an appropriate S/N ratio (Byrne and Taguchi,
1987).

In the present investigation, the raw data analysis and S/N data analysis have been
performed. The effects of the selected PIM process parameters on the selected quality
characteristics have been investigated through the plots of the main effects based on raw
data. The optimum condition for each of the quality characteristics has been established
through S/N data analysis aided by the raw data analysis. No outer array has been used and
instead, experiments have been repeated three times at each experimental condition.

29
3.3.3 Loss Function

The heart of Taguchi method is his definition of the nebulous and elusive term ‘quality’ as
the characteristic that avoids loss to the society from the time the product is shipped (Braker,
1986). Loss is measured in terms of monetary units and is related to quantifiable product
characteristic.
Taguchi defines quality loss via his “loss function”. He unites the financial loss with
the functional specification through a quadratic relationship that comes from a Taylor series
expansion. The quadratic function takes the form of a parabola. Taguchi defines the loss
function as a quantity proportional to the deviation from the nominal quality characteristic
(Roy, 1990). He has found the following quadratic form to be a useful workable function
(Roy, 1990):

L y   k  y  m 2 (3.1)

Where,
L = Loss in monetary units
m = value at which the characteristic should be set
y = actual value of the characteristic
k = constant depending on the magnitude of the characteristic and the monetary
unit involved
The loss function represented in Eq. 3.1 is graphically shown in Figure 3.1a. The
characteristics of the loss function are (Roy, 1990):
 The farther the product’s characteristic varies from the target value, the
greater is the loss. The loss must be zero when the quality characteristic of a
product meets its target value.
 The loss is a continuous function and not a sudden step as in the case of
traditional (goal post) approach (Figure 3.1b). This consequence of the
continuous loss function illustrates the point that merely making a product
within the specification limits does not necessarily mean that product is of
good quality.
30
3.3.3.1 Average loss-function for product population
In a mass production process, the average loss per unit is expressed as (Roy 1990):

L( y ) 
1
n
    
k ( y  m) 2  k y  m 2  .....  k y  m 2
1 2 n
(3.2)

Where,
y1, y2…yn = Actual value of the characteristic for unit 1, 2,…n respectively
n = Number of units in a given sample
k = Constant depending on the magnitude of the characteristic and the
monetary unit involved
m = Target value at which the characteristic should be set

3.3.3.2 Average loss-function for product population

The loss-function can also be applied to product characteristics other than the situation where
the nominal value is the best value (m).
The loss-function for a “smaller is better” type of product characteristic (LB) is
shown in Figure 3.2a. The loss function is identical to the “nominal-is-best” type of situation
when m=0, which is the best value for “smaller is better” characteristic (no negative value).
The loss function for a “larger-is-better” type of product characteristic (HB) is also shown in
Figure 3.2b, where also m=0.

3.3.4 Signal to Noise Ratio

The loss-function discussed above is an effective figure of merit for making engineering
design decisions. However, to establish an appropriate loss-function with its k value to use
as a figure of merit is not always cost-effective and easy. Recognizing the dilemma, Taguchi
created a transform function for the loss-function which is named as signal -to-noise (S/N)
ratio (Barker, 1990).
The S/N ratio, as stated earlier, is a concurrent statistic. A concurrent statistic is able
to look at two characteristics of a distribution and roll these characteristics into a single
number or figure of merit.
31
 (a) Taguchi Loss Function

(b) Traditional (Goal-Post) Approach

Figure 3.3 (a, b): The Taguchi Loss-Function and The Traditional Approach
(Ross,1988)

32
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3.4 (a, b): The Taguchi Loss-Function for LB and HB Characteristics

(Barker, 1990)

33
A high value of S/N implies that signal is much higher than the random effects of noise
factors. Process operation consistent with highest S/N always yields optimum quality with
minimum variation (Barker, 1990).
The S/N ratio consolidates several repetitions (at least two data points are required)
into one value. The equation for calculating S/N ratios for “smaller is better” (LB), “larger is
better” (HB) and “nominal is best” (NB) types of characteristics are as follows (Ross, 1988):

1. Larger the Better:

S
 
 N  HB
 10 log MSD 
HB
 (3.3)

Where,
1 R 
1 / y j 
MSD   2
HB R j  1  

2. Smaller the Better:

S
 
 N  LB
 10 log MSD 
LB
 (3.4)

Where,
1 R  2 
MSD   y j
LB R j  1 

3. Nominal the Best

S
 
 N  NB
 10 log MSD 
NB
 (3.5)

Where,
2
  R  y  y 
1
MSD
NB R j  1 j 0

34
The mean squared deviation (MSD) is a statistical quantity that reflects the deviation from
the target value. The expressions for MSD are different for different quality characteristics.
For the “nominal is best” characteristic, the standard definition of MSD is used. For the other
two characteristics the definition is slightly modified. For “smaller is better”, the unstated
target value is zero. For “larger is better”, the inverse of each large value becomes a small
value and again, the unstated target value is zero. Thus for all three expressions, the smallest
magnitude of MSD is being sought.

3.3.5 Relation between S/N Ratio and Loss Function

Figure 3.2a shows a single sided quadratic loss function with minimum loss at the
zero value of the desired characteristic. As the value of y increases, the loss grows. Since,
loss is to be minimized the target in this situation for y is zero.
The basic loss function (Eq. 3.1) is:

L y   k  y  m 2

If m = 0

L(y) = k (y2)

The loss may be generalized by using k=1 and the expected value of loss may be found by
summing all the losses for a population and dividing by the number of samples R taken from
this population. This in turn gives the following expression (Barker, 1990).

EL = Expected loss = (Σy2/R) (3.6)

The above expression is a figure of demerit. The negative of this demerit expression
produces a positive quality function. This is the thought process that goes into the creation of
S/N ratio from the basic quadratic loss function. Taguchi adds the final touch to this
transformed loss-function by taking the log (base 10) of the negative expected loss and then
he multiplies by 10 to put the metric into the decibel terminology (Barker, 1990). The final
expression for “smaller-is-better” S/N ratio takes the form of Equation 3.2. The same thought
pattern follows in creation of other S/N ratios.

35
3.3.6 Steps in Experimental Design and Analysis
The Taguchi experimental design and analysis flow diagram is shown in Figure 3.3. The
important steps are discussed in the subsequent article

3.3.6.1 Selection of orthogonal array (OA)

In selecting an appropriate OA, the pre-requisites are (Ross, 1988; Roy, 1990):
 Selection of process parameters and/or interactions to be evaluated
 Selection of number of levels for the selected parameters

The determination of which parameters to investigate hinges upon the product or process
performance characteristics or responses of interest (Ross, 1988). Several methods are
suggested by Taguchi for determining which parameters to include in an experiment. These
are (Ross, 1988):

a) Brainstorming
b) Flow charting
c) Cause-Effect diagrams
The total Degrees of Freedom (DOF) of an experiment is a direct function of total
number of trials. If the number of levels of a parameter increases, the DOF of the parameter
also increases because the DOF of a parameter is the number of levels minus one. Thus,
increasing the number of levels for a parameter increases the total degrees of freedom in the
experiment which in turn increases the total number of trials. Thus, two levels for each
parameter are recommended to minimize the size of the experiment (Ross, 1988). If curved
or higher order polynomial relationship between the parameters under study and the response
is expected, at least three levels for each parameter should be considered (Barker, 1990). The
standard two level and three level arrays (Taguchi and Wu, 1979) are:
 Two level arrays: L4, L8, L12, L16, L32
 Three level arrays: L9, L18, L27
The number as subscript in the array designation indicates the number of trials in that array.
The total degrees of freedom (DOF) available in an OA are equal to the number of trials
minus one (Ross, 1988).
36
Figure 3.5: Taguchi Experimental Design and Analysis Flow Diagram
37
When a particular OA is selected for an experiment, the following inequality must be
satisfied (Ross, 1988):

fL ≥ Total degree of freedom required for parameters and interactions (3.8)

N
Depending on the number of levels of the parameters and total DOF required for the
experiment, a suitable OA is selected.

3.3.6.2 Assignment of parameters and interaction to the OA

The OA‟s have several columns available for assignment of parameters and some columns
subsequently can estimate the effect of interactions of these parameters. Taguchi has
provided two tools to aid in the assignment of parameters and interactions to arrays (Ross,
1988; Roy, 1990):
1. Linear graphs
2. Triangular tables
Each OA has a particular set of linear graphs and a triangular table associated with it. The
linear graphs indicate various columns to which parameters may be assigned and the columns
subsequently evaluate the interaction of these parameters. The triangular tables contain all
the possible interactions between parameters (columns). Using the linear graphs and /or the
triangular table of the selected OA, the parameters and interactions are assigned to the
columns of the OA.

3.3.6.3 Selection of outer array

Taguchi separates factors (parameters) into two main groups: controllable factors and
uncontrollable factors (noise factors). Controllable factors are factors that can easily be
controlled. Noise factors, on the other hand, are nuisance variables that are difficult,
impossible, or expensive to control (Byrne and Taguchi, 1987). The noise factors are
responsible for the performance variation of a process. Taguchi recommends the use of outer
array for the noise factors and inner arrays for controllable factors. If an outer array is used,
the noise variation is forced into the experiment. However, experiments against the trial
conditions of the inner array (the OA used for the controllable factors) may be repeated and
in this case the noise variation is unforced into the experiment (Byrne and Taguchi, 1987).
38
The outer array, if used, will have same assignment considerations. However, the outer array
should not be complex as the inner array because the outer array is noise only which is
controlled only in the experiment (Ross, 1988).
3.3.6.4 Experimentation and data collection
The experiment is performed against each of the trial conditions of the inner array. Each
experiment at a trial condition is repeated simply (if outer array is not used) or according to
the outer array (if used). Randomization should be carried to reduce bias in the experiment.
The data (raw data) are recorded against each trial condition and S/N ratios of the
repeated data points are calculated and recorded against each trial condition.

3.3.6.5 Data analysis

A number of methods have been suggested by Taguchi for analyzing the data: observation
method, ranking method, column effect method, ANOVA, S/N ANOVA, plot of average
response curves, interaction graphs etc. (Ross, 1988). However, in the present investigation
the following methods have been used:
 Plot of average response curves
 ANOVA for raw data
 ANOVA for S/N data
 S/N response graphs
 Interaction graphs
 Residual graphs
The plot of average responses at each level of a parameter indicates the trend. It is a pictorial
representation of the effect of parameter on the response. The change in the response
characteristic with the change in levels of a parameter can easily be visualized from these
curves. Typically, ANOVA for OA‟s are conducted in the same manner as other structured
experiments (Ross, 1988). The S/N ratio is treated as a response of the experiment, which is a
measure of the variation within a trial when noise factors are present. A standard ANOVA
can be conducted on S/N ratio which will identify the significant parameters (mean and
variation). Interaction graphs are used to select the best combination of interactive
parameters (Peace, 1993). Residual plots are used to check the accuracy.

39
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results of the Experimentation , with different setting of the input
parameters and the value of the output variable was recorded and the main results obtained
are analysed and plotted as per Design of Experiment methodology. The experimental results
are discussed subsequently in the following sections.

4.2 SELECTION OF ORTHOGONAL ARRAY AND PARAMETER ASSIGNMENT

For the present experimental work the six process parameters each at two levels have been
decided. It is desirable to have two minimum levels of process parameters to reflect the true
behaviour of output parameters of study. The process parameters are renamed as factors and
they are given in the adjacent column. The process parameters and two different working
levels are given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Process parameters and their levels

High 220
1. Zone 1 Low 210
A. Temperature [°C] High 205
2. Zone 2 Low 195
High 55
3. Injection
B. Pressure [bar] Low 50
High 40
4. Packing
Low 30
High 8
5. Injection
C. Time [sec] Low 6
High 10
6. Cooling
Low 8

40
4.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The injection moulding (IM) experiments were conducted to study the effect of process
parameters over the output response characteristics with the process parameters and
interactions assigned to columns as given in Table 4.2. The experimental results for Short-
shots and Flash are given in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 reports the same for gap Silver-spots
and Shrinkage. 16 experiments were conducted using Taguchi experimental design
methodology and each experiment was simply repeated two times for obtaining S/N values.
In the present study all the designs, plots and analysis have been carried out using Minitab
statistical software.

Table 4.2: L16 Orthogonal Array design for 6 factors at 2 levels

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Run
Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature
No.
[bar] [bar] [sec] [sec] [°C] [°C]
1 50 30 6 8 210 195
2 50 30 6 10 210 205
3 50 30 8 8 220 195
4 50 30 8 10 220 205
5 50 40 6 8 220 205
6 50 40 6 10 220 195
7 50 40 8 8 210 205
8 50 40 8 10 210 195
9 55 30 6 8 220 205
10 55 30 6 10 220 195
11 55 30 8 8 210 205
12 55 30 8 10 210 195
13 55 40 6 8 210 195
14 55 40 6 10 210 205
15 55 40 8 8 220 195
16 55 40 8 10 220 205

41
 Table 4.3: Experimental Results of Short-shots and Flash

Short-shots (% defectives) Flash (% defectives)

Trial S/N S/N
No. Ratio Ratio
Run 1 Run 2 Average Run 1 Run 2 Average

1 5.32 5.74 5.53 -14.86 2.36 2.55 2.46 -7.81

2 7.38 6.56 6.97 -16.87 3.27 2.91 3.09 -9.82

3 5.74 6.14 5.94 -15.48 2.55 2.73 2.64 -8.43

4 7.79 8.61 8.20 -18.29 3.46 3.82 3.64 -11.23

5 4.50 3.69 4.09 -12.29 2.00 1.64 1.82 -5.23

6 4.92 4.10 4.51 -13.11 2.18 1.82 2.00 -6.06

7 8.61 7.38 7.99 -18.08 3.82 3.27 3.55 -11.03

8 9.01 8.20 8.61 -18.70 4.00 3.64 3.82 -11.65

9 3.69 3.28 3.48 -10.85 1.64 1.46 1.55 -3.80

10 4.10 4.10 4.10 -12.25 1.82 1.82 1.82 -5.20

11 6.14 5.74 5.94 -15.48 2.73 2.55 2.64 -8.43

12 6.56 6.97 6.76 -16.61 2.91 3.09 3.00 -9.55

13 4.92 5.32 5.12 -14.19 2.18 2.36 2.27 -7.14

14 4.50 4.92 4.71 -13.47 2.00 2.18 2.09 -6.42

15 7.38 6.97 7.17 -17.12 3.27 3.09 3.18 -10.06

16 4.50 6.14 5.32 -14.63 2.00 2.73 2.36 -7.57

42
 Table 4.4: Experimental Results of Silver-spots and Shrinkage

Silver-spots (% defectives) Shrinkage (% defectives)

Trial S/N S/N
No. Ratio Ratio
Run 1 Run 2 Average Run 1 Run 2 Average

1 0.57 0.62 0.60 4.50 0.41 0.44 0.42 7.50

2 0.79 0.71 0.75 2.49 0.56 0.50 0.53 5.48

3 0.62 0.66 0.64 3.88 0.44 0.47 0.45 6.88

4 0.84 0.93 0.88 1.08 0.59 0.66 0.62 4.07

5 0.48 0.40 0.44 7.07 0.34 0.28 0.31 10.07

6 0.53 0.44 0.49 6.25 0.37 0.31 0.34 9.24

7 0.93 0.79 0.86 1.28 0.66 0.56 0.61 4.28

8 0.97 0.88 0.93 0.66 0.69 0.62 0.66 3.65

9 0.40 0.35 0.37 8.51 0.28 0.25 0.27 11.51

10 0.44 0.44 0.44 7.11 0.31 0.31 0.31 10.11

11 0.66 0.62 0.64 3.88 0.47 0.44 0.45 6.88

12 0.71 0.75 0.73 2.76 0.50 0.53 0.52 5.75

13 0.53 0.57 0.55 5.17 0.37 0.41 0.39 8.16

14 0.48 0.53 0.51 5.89 0.34 0.37 0.36 8.89

15 0.79 0.75 0.77 2.25 0.56 0.53 0.55 5.24

16 0.48 0.66 0.57 4.74 0.34 0.47 0.41 7.73

43
4.4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The Injection moulding experiments were conducted by using the parametric approach of the
Taguchi’s method. The effects of individual Injection moulding process parameters, on the
selected defects- Short-shots, Flash, Silver-spots and Shrinkage, have been discussed in this
section. The average value and S/N ratio of the response characteristics for each variable at
different levels were calculated from experimental data. The main effects of process
variables were plotted. The response curves (main effects) are used for examining the
parametric effects on the response characteristics. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of S/N
data is carried out to identify the significant variables and to quantify their effects on the
response characteristics. The most favourable values (optimal settings) of process variables
in terms of mean response characteristics are established by analysing the response curves
and the ANOVA tables.

4.4.1 Effect on Short-shots

In order to see the effect of process parameters on the Short-shots, experiments were
conducted using L16 OA (Table 4.2). The experimental data are given in Tables 4.3.
Response table for signal to noise ratios and for means are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.6
respectively. The average values of Short-shots for each parameter at levels 1 and 2 for
Means and S/N data are plotted in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. It is seen from the
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 that Short-shots increases with the increase of Packing Pressure, Injection
time and Cooling Time and decreases with increase in Injection Pressure, Zone 1
Temperature, and Zone 2 Temperature. It is clear from Figures 4.3 and 4.4 that there is no
interaction between all the other process parameters in affecting the Short-shots since the
responses at different levels of process parameters for a given level of parameter value are
almost parallel.
Residual plots are used to evaluate the data for the problems like non normality, non-
random variation, non constant variance, higher-order relationships, and outliers. It can be
seen from Figure 4.5 that the residuals follow an approximately straight line in normal

44
probability plot and approximate symmetric nature of histogram indicates that the residuals
are normally distributed. Residuals possess constant variance as they are scattered randomly
around zero in residuals versus the fitted values. Since residuals exhibit no clear pattern,
there is no error due to time or data collection order.
Table 4.5: Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Short-shots)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

-15.96 -15.09 -13.49 -14.79 -16.03 -15.29

1

-14.32 -15.20 -16.80 -15.49 -14.25 -14.99

2

1.64 0.11 3.31 0.70 1.78 0.30

Delta

3 6 1 4 2 5
Rank

Table 4.6: Response Table for Means (Short-shots)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

6.479 5.865 4.814 5.659 6.453 5.967

1

5.326 5.941 6.992 6.146 5.352 5.838

2

1.153 0.076 2.178 0.487 1.101 0.129

Delta

2 6 1 4 3 5
Rank

45
Rank values indicates the relative importance of each factor to the response. Delta shows the
differences between the highest value of all the six factors for signal to noise ratio and for
means here which has the highest delta, gets the highest rank as shown in table 4.5. The rank
and delta values for various parameters shows that the Injection time has the greatest effect
on Short-shots and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature and Injection pressure.

Figure 4.1: Main Effects Plot for Means (Short-shots)

Figure 4.2: Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Short-shots)

46
 Figure 4.3: Interaction Plot for Means (Short-shots)

Figure 4.4: Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Short-shots)

47
 Figure 4.5: Residual Plots for Means (Short-shots)
Table 4.7: General linear Model (ANOVA) for Short-shots

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Contribution

Injection Pressure 1 0.141844 0.141844 6.79 0.028 12.76%
Packing Pressure 1 0.000440 0.000440 0.02 0.888 0.04%
Injection Time 1 0.579193 0.579193 27.74 0.001 52.11%
Cooling Time 1 0.025127 0.025127 1.20 0.301 2.26%
Zone 1
Temperature 1 0.171581 0.171581 8.22 0.019 15.44%

Zone 2
Temperature 1 0.005290 0.005290 0.25 0.627 0.48%

Error 9 0.187924 0.020880

Total 15

48
4.4.1.1 Selection of optimal levels
In order to study the significance of the process variables for Short-shots, analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed. It was found that Packing Pressure and Zone 2
Temperature are non-significant process parameters for Short-shots. All the parameters were
pooled and the pooled versions of ANOVA of the S/N data for Short-shots are given in
Tables 4.7. From the table, it is clear that injection time, Zone 1 temperature and injection
pressure are the significant factors. The response tables (Tables 4.5 and 4.6) show the
average of each response characteristic (S/N data, means) for each level of each factor. The
tables include ranks based on delta statistics, which compare the relative magnitude of
effects. The delta statistic is the highest minus the lowest average for each factor. Minitab
assigns ranks based on delta values; rank 1 to the highest delta value, rank 2 to the second
highest, and so on. The ranks indicate the relative importance of each factor to the response.
The ranks and the delta values show that Injection time has the greatest effect on Short-shots
and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature, Injection pressure and Cooling Time in that order.
As Short-shots is the “Smaller is better” type quality characteristic, it can be seen from
Figure 4.1 that the second level of Injection pressure (A2), first level of Packing pressure
(B1), first level of Injection time (C1), first level of Cooling time (D1), second level of Zone
1 Temperature (E2) and second level of Zone 2 Temperature (F2) provide optimal process
parameter combination for Short-shots.

4.4.2 Effect on Flash

In order to see the effect of process parameters on the Flash, experiments were conducted
using L16 OA (Table 4.2). The experimental data are given in Tables 4.3. Response table for
signal to noise ratios and for means are shown in Tables 4.8 and 4.9 respectively. The
average values of Flash for each parameter at levels 1 and 2 for Means and S/N data are
plotted in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 respectively. It is seen from the Figures 4.6 and 4.7 that Flash
increases with the increase of Packing Pressure, Injection time and Cooling Time and
decreases with increase in Injection Pressure, Zone 1 Temperature, and Zone 2 Temperature.

49
It is clear from Figures 4.8 and 4.9 that there is no interaction between all the other process
parameters in affecting the Flash since the responses at different levels of process parameters
for a given level of parameter value are almost parallel. Residual plots do not show any
problem in the distribution of the data and model assumptions (Figure 4.10).

Table 4.8: Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Flash)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

-8.908 -8.033 -6.434 -7.740 -8.980 -8.238

1

-7.271 -8.146 -9.744 -8.438 -7.198 -7.941

2

1.637 0.113 3.310 0.698 1.782 0.297

Delta

3 6 1 4 2 5
Rank

Table 4.9: Response Table for Means (Flash)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

2.876 2.604 2.137 2.512 2.865 2.649

1

2.365 2.637 3.104 2.729 2.376 2.592

2

0.512 0.034 0.967 0.216 0.489 0.057

Delta

2 6 1 4 3 5
Rank

50
Rank values indicates the relative importance of each factor to the response. Delta shows the
differences between the highest value of all the six factors for signal to noise ratio and for
means here which has the highest delta, gets the highest rank as shown in table 4.8. The rank
and delta values for various parameters shows that the Injection time has the greatest effect
on Short-shots and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature and Injection pressure.

Figure 4.6: Main Effects Plot for Means (Flash)

Figure 4.7: Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Flash)

51
 Figure 4.8: Interaction Plot for Means (Flash)

Figure 4.9: Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Flash)

52
 Figure 4.10: Residual Plots for Means (Flash)

Table 4.10: General linear Model (ANOVA) for Flash

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Contribution

Injection Pressure 1 0.141844 0.141844 6.79 0.028 12.76%
Packing Pressure 1 0.000440 0.000440 0.02 0.888 0.04%
Injection Time 1 0.579193 0.579193 27.74 0.001 52.11%
Cooling Time 1 0.025127 0.025127 1.20 0.301 2.26%
Zone 1
Temperature 1 0.171581 0.171581 8.22 0.019 15.44%

Zone 2
Temperature 1 0.005290 0.005290 0.25 0.627 0.48%

Error 9 0.187924 0.020880

Total 15

53
4.4.2.1 Selection of optimal levels
In order to study the significance of the process variables for Flash, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed. It was found that Packing Pressure and Zone 2 Temperature are
non-significant process parameters for Flash. All the parameters were pooled and the pooled
versions of ANOVA of the S/N data for Flash are given in Tables 4.10. From the table, it is
clear that injection time, Zone 1 temperature and injection pressure are the significant factors .
The response tables (Tables 4.8 and 4.9) show the average of each response characteristic
(S/N data, means) for each level of each factor. The delta statistic is the highest minus the
lowest average for each factor. Minitab assigns ranks based on delta values; rank 1 to the
highest delta value, rank 2 to the second highest, and so on. The ranks indicate the relative
importance of each factor to the response. The ranks and the delta values show that Injection
time has the greatest effect on Flash and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature, Injection
pressure and Cooling Time in that order. As Flash is the “Smaller is better” type quality
characteristic, it can be seen from Figure 4.6 that the second level of Injection pressure (A2),
first level of Packing pressure (B1), first level of Injection time (C1), first level of Cooling
time (D1), second level of Zone 1 Temperature (E2) and second level of Zone 2
Temperature (F2) provide optimal process parameter combination for Flash.

4.4.3 Effect on Silver-spots

In order to see the effect of process parameters on the Silver-spots, experiments were
conducted using L16 OA (Table 4.2). The experimental data are given in Tables 4.4.
Response table for signal to noise ratios and for means are shown in Tables 4.11 and 4.12
respectively. The average values of Silver-spots for each parameter at levels 1 and 2 for
Means and S/N data are plotted in Figures 4.11 and 4.12 respectively. It is seen from the
Figures 4.11 and 4.12 that Silver-spots increases with the increase of Packing Pressure,
Injection time and Cooling Time and decreases with increase in Injection Pressure, Zone 1
Temperature, and Zone 2 Temperature. It is clear from Figures 4.13 and 4.14 that there is no
interaction between all the other process parameters in affecting the Silver-spots since the
responses at different levels of process parameters for a given level of parameter value are
almost parallel.

54
 Table 4.11: Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Silver-spots)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

1 3.401 4.276 5.874 4.568 3.328 4.071

2 5.037 4.163 2.564 3.870 5.110 4.368

Delta 1.637 0.113 3.310 0.698 1.782 0.297

Rank 3 6 1 4 2 5

Table 4.12: Response Table for Means (Silver-spots)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

1 0.6973 0.6312 0.5181 0.6090 0.6945 0.6422

2 0.5732 0.6394 0.7525 0.6615 0.5760 0.6283

Delta 0.1241 0.0082 0.2344 0.0525 0.1185 0.0138

Rank 2 6 1 4 3 5

Rank values indicates the relative importance of each factor to the response. Delta shows the
differences between the highest value of all the six factors for signal to noise ratio and for
means here which has the highest delta, gets the highest rank as shown in table 4.11. The
rank and delta values for various parameters shows that the Injection time has the greatest
effect on Short-shots and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature and Injection pressure.

55
 Figure 4.11: Main Effects Plot for Means (Silver-spots)

Figure 4.12: Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Silver-spots)

56
 Figure 4.13: Interaction Plot for Means (Silver-spots)

Figure 4.14: Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Silver-spots)

57
 Figure 4.15: Residual Plots for Means (Silver-spots)

It can be seen from Figure 4.15 that the residuals follow an approximately straight line in
normal probability plot and approximate symmetric nature of histogram indicates that the
residuals are normally distributed. Residuals possess constant variance as they are scattered
randomly around zero in residuals versus the fitted values. Since residuals exhibit no clear
pattern, there is no error due to time or data collection order.
Table 4.13: General linear Model (ANOVA) for Silver-spots

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Contribution

Injection Pressure 1 0.141844 0.141844 6.79 0.028 12.76%
Packing Pressure 1 0.000440 0.000440 0.02 0.888 0.04%
Injection Time 1 0.579193 0.579193 27.74 0.001 52.11%
Cooling Time 1 0.025127 0.025127 1.20 0.301 2.26%
Zone 1
Temperature 1 0.171581 0.171581 8.22 0.019 15.44%

Zone 2
Temperature 1 0.005290 0.005290 0.25 0.627 0.48%

Error 9 0.187924 0.020880

Total 15

58
4.4.3.1 Selection of optimal levels
In order to study the significance of the process variables for Silver-spots, analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed. It was found that Packing Pressure and Zone 2
Temperature are non-significant process parameters for Silver-spots. All the parameters were
pooled and the pooled versions of ANOVA of the S/N data for Silver-spots are given in
Tables 4.13. From the table, it is clear that injection time, Zone 1 temperature and injection
pressure are the significant factors. The response tables (Tables 4.11 and 4.12) show the
average of each response characteristic (S/N data, means) for each level of each factor. The
tables include ranks based on delta statistics, which compare the relative magnitude of
effects. The delta statistic is the highest minus the lowest average for each factor. Minitab
assigns ranks based on delta values; rank 1 to the highest delta value, rank 2 to the second
highest, and so on. The ranks indicate the relative importance of each factor to the response.
The ranks and the delta values show that Injection time has the greatest effect on Silver-spots
and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature, Injection pressure and Cooling Time in that order.
As Silver-spots is the “Smaller is better” type quality characteristic, it can be seen from
Figure 4.11 that the second level of Injection pressure (A2), first level of Packing pressure
(B1), first level of Injection time (C1), first level of Cooling time (D1), second level of Zone
1 Temperature (E2) and second level of Zone 2 Temperature (F2) provide optimal process
parameter combination for Silver-spots.

4.4.4 Effect on Shrinkage

In order to see the effect of process parameters on the Shrinkage, experiments were
conducted using L16 OA (Table 4.2). The experimental data are given in Tables 4.4.
Response table for signal to noise ratios and for means are shown in Tables 4.14 and 4.15
respectively. The average values of Shrinkage for each parameter at levels 1 and 2 for Means
and S/N data are plotted in Figures 4.16 and 4.17 respectively. It is seen from the Figures
4.16 and 4.17 that Shrinkage increases with the increase of Packing Pressure, Injection time
and Cooling Time and decreases with increase in Injection Pressure, Zone 1 Temperature,
and Zone 2 Temperature.

59
It is clear from Figures 4.18 and 4.19 that there is no interaction between all the other process
parameters in affecting the Shrinkage since the responses at different levels of process
parameters for a given level of parameter value are almost parallel. Residual plots do not
show any problem in the distribution of the data and model assumptions (Figure 4.20).

Table 4.14: Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios (Shrinkage)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

1 6.396 7.271 8.869 7.563 6.323 7.066

2 8.033 7.158 5.560 6.866 8.106 7.363

Delta 1.637 0.113 3.310 0.698 1.782 0.297

Rank 3 6 1 4 2 5

Table 4.15: Response Table for Means (Shrinkage)

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

1 0.4939 0.4471 0.3670 0.4314 0.4920 0.4549

2 0.4060 0.4529 0.5330 0.4686 0.4080 0.4451

Delta 0.0879 0.0058 0.1660 0.0372 0.0840 0.0098

Rank 2 6 1 4 3 5

60
Rank values indicates the relative importance of each factor to the response. Delta shows the
differences between the highest value of all the six factors for signal to noise ratio and for
means here which has the highest delta, gets the highest rank as shown in table 4.14. The
rank and delta values for various parameters shows that the Injection time has the greatest
effect on Short-shots and is followed by Zone 1 Temperature and Injection pressure.

Figure 4.16: Main Effects Plot for Means (Shrinkage)

Figure 4.17: Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (Shrinkage)

61
 Figure 4.18: Interaction Plot for Means (Shrinkage)

Figure 4.19: Interaction Plot for SN ratios (Shrinkage)

62
 Figure 4.20: Residual Plots for Means (Shrinkage)

Table 4.16: General linear Model (ANOVA) for Shrinkage

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Contribution

Injection Pressure
1 0.141844 0.141844 6.79 0.028 12.76%
Packing Pressure 1 0.000440 0.000440 0.02 0.888 0.04%
Injection Time
1 0.579193 0.579193 27.74 0.001 52.11%
Cooling Time
1 0.025127 0.025127 1.20 0.301 2.26%
Zone 1
Temperature 1 0.171581 0.171581 8.22 0.019 15.44%

Zone 2
Temperature 1 0.005290 0.005290 0.25 0.627 0.48%

Error 9 0.187924 0.020880

Total
15

63
4.4.4.1 Selection of optimal levels
In order to study the significance of the process variables for Shrinkage, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed. It was found that Packing Pressure and Zone 2 Temperature are
non-significant process parameters for Shrinkage. All the parameters were pooled and the
pooled versions of ANOVA of the S/N data for Shrinkage are given in Tables 4.16. From the
table, it is clear that injection time, Zone 1 temperature and injection pressure are the
significant factors. The response tables (Tables 4.14 and 4.15) show the average of each
response characteristic (S/N data, means) for each level of each factor. The tables include
ranks based on delta statistics, which compare the relative magnitude of effects. The delta
statistic is the highest minus the lowest average for each factor. Minitab assigns ranks based
on delta values; rank 1 to the highest delta value, rank 2 to the second highest, and so on. The
ranks indicate the relative importance of each factor to the response. The ranks and the delta
values show that Injection time has the greatest effect on Shrinkage and is followed by Zone
1 Temperature, Injection pressure and Cooling Time in that order. As Shrinkage is the
“Smaller is better” type quality characteristic, it can be seen from Figure 4.14 that the second
level of Injection pressure (A2), first level of Packing pressure (B1), first level of Injection
time (C1), first level of Cooling time (D1), second level of Zone 1 Temperature (E2) and
second level of Zone 2 Temperature (F2) provide optimal process parameter combination
for Shrinkage.

4.5 CONFIRMATION EXPERIMENT

It is important to select accurate orthogonal array and for this task Minitab 17 Statistical
Software was used for designing the experiments. In this work, the Orthogonal Arrays (L16)
are used to study the six factors at two levels. The 16 different experimental conditions are
set as shown in Table 4.17. Two replicates were performed in each condition and the
percentage defectives are measured as responses, as shown in Table 4.17. The overall
experiments are run on 16 experiments. Response table for signal to noise ratios and for
means are shown in Tables 4.18 and 4.19 respectively. The average values of Shrinkage for
each parameter at levels 1 and 2 for Means and S/N data are plotted in Figures 4.21 and 4.22
respectively.
64
It is seen from the Figures 4.21 and 4.22 that percentage defects increases with the increase
of Packing Pressure, Injection time and Cooling Time and decreases with increase in
Injection Pressure, Zone 1 Temperature, and Zone 2 Temperature.
Table 4.17: Response of % defectives
Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2
Run Run
Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature Run 1
No. 2
[bar] [bar] [sec] [sec] [°C] [°C]
1 50 30 6 8 210 195 9.55 10.29
2 50 30 6 10 210 205 13.23 11.76
3 50 30 8 8 220 195 10.29 11.02
4 50 30 8 10 220 205 13.97 15.44
5 50 40 6 8 220 205 8.08 6.61
6 50 40 6 10 220 195 8.82 7.35
7 50 40 8 8 210 205 15.44 13.23
8 50 40 8 10 210 195 16.17 14.70
9 55 30 6 8 220 205 6.61 5.88
10 55 30 6 10 220 195 7.35 7.35
11 55 30 8 8 210 205 11.02 10.29
12 55 30 8 10 210 195 11.76 12.50
13 55 40 6 8 210 195 8.82 9.55
14 55 40 6 10 210 205 8.08 8.82
15 55 40 8 8 220 195 13.23 12.50
16 55 40 8 10 220 205 8.08 11.02

Table 4.18: Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure, A Pressure, B Time, C Time, D Temperature, E Temperature, F
[MPa] [MPa] [sec] [sec] [°C] [°C]
1 -21.04 -20.16 -18.56 -19.87 -21.11 -20.37

2 -19.40 -20.27 -21.87 -20.57 -19.33 -20.07

Delta 1.64 0.11 3.31 0.70 1.78 0.30

Rank 3 6 1 4 2 5

65
 Table 4.19: Response Table for Means

Injection Packing Injection Cooling Zone 1 Zone 2

Level Pressure Pressure Time Time Temperature Temperature

11.622 10.519 8.634 10.151 11.576 10.703

1

9.554 10.656 12.541 11.025 9.600 10.473

2

2.068 0.137 3.907 0.874 1.976 0.231

Delta

2 6 1 4 3 5
Rank

Figure 4.21: Main Effects Plot for Means

66
Figure 4.22: Main Effects Plot for SN ratios

Figure 4.23: Interaction Plot for Means

67
 Figure 4.24: Interaction Plot for SN ratios

From the Interaction Effect Plots, it is clear that there is no Interaction in between the factors.

4.5.1 Confirmation Run

The result of the confirmation run for the optimum setting are shown in Table 6. Thus from a
rejection rate of 10.29%, optimization of the process with the help of Taguchi Method
reduced it to 5.88%.
Hence, reduction in % rejection = (10.29-5.88)/10.29 = 42.85%

Table 4.20: Confirmation run results

No. of pieces Produced No. of defective pieces observed %defectives

68x3 = 204 12 5.88%

68
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

In the earlier chapters, the effects of process variables on response defects (Short-shots,
Flash, Silver-spots and Shrinkage) of the Plastic injection moulding (PIM) process have been
discussed. An optimal set of process variables that minimize various defects to machined
parts produced by PIM process has also been obtained. The important conclusions from the
present research work are summarized in this chapter.

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

1. Ranges of Plastic injection moulding process parameters have been established based on
review of literature and as per the opinion of the machine expert on the basis of the
manufacturing history as under:

High 220
1. Zone 1 Low 210
A. Temperature [°C] High 205
2. Zone 2 Low 195
High 55
3. Injection
B. Pressure [bar] Low 50
High 40
4. Packing
Low 30
High 8
5. Injection
C. Time [sec] Low 6
High 10
6. Cooling
Low 8

2. The effects of the process parameters viz. Injection Pressure, Packing Pressure, Injection
Time, Cooling Time, Zone 1 Temperature and Zone 2 Temperature, on defects viz. Short-
shots, Flash, Silver-spots and Shrinkage, were studied.

69
3. The optimal sets of process parameters were obtained for various performance measures
using Taguchi‟s design of experiment methodology.

4. The Signal-to-Noise Ratio table for Smaller-the-Better condition is given in table 4.18 and
the best set of combination parameter can be determined by selecting the level with highest
value for each factor.

5. As a result, the optimal process parameter combination for Polypropylene(PP) is A2, B1,
C1, D1, E2, F1 to minimize the rejection rate.

6. The Delta value given in table 4.18 shows that injection time is the most significant factor
affecting the response (% defectives) followed by Zone 1 temperature and injection pressure.
Packing pressure was found to be the least effective factor.

7. From the findings, it can be stated that Taguchi method is a powerful tool used for setting
the optimum parameters of the process and it gives break through result.

8. The result of the confirmation run for the optimum setting are shown in Table 4.20. Thus
from a rejection rate of 10.29%, optimization of the process with the help of Taguchi Method
reduced it to 5.88%.

5.2 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

The further research can be carried out:
1. Try to find more parameters with more of levels to get results more accurately when do
the optimization.
2. Efforts should be made to investigate the Shrinkage behaviour and optimization of
injection molded parts by the Taguchi method.
3. Optimization of injection molding process parameters by a hybrid of artificial neural
network may be investigated.
4. To study the selection and setting of injection molding machines by means of process
simulation.
5. To get a better result, it is suggest running another injection molding software and
comparing result between Moldflow Plastic Insight software.

70
 REFERENCES
[1]. Sajjan Kumar Lal, Dr. Hari Vasudevan, “Optimization of Injection Moulding Process
Parameters in the Moulding of Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)”, International
Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, pISSN: 2278-
800X, Volume 7, Issue 5 Page no..35-39.

[2]. Ng Chin Fei, Nik Mizamzul Mehat, “Practical Applications of Taguchi Method for
Optimization of Processing Parameters for Plastic Injection Moulding: A Retrospective
Review”, Hindawi Publishing Corporation ISRN Industrial Engineering, Article ID
462174, 11 pages.

[3]. Dragan Kusic, Tomaz Kek, “The impact of process parameters on test specimen
deviations and their correlation with AE signals captured during the injection moulding
cycle” Elsevier, Polymer Testing, Page no. 583–593.

[4]. Mohd. Muktar Alam, Deepak Kumar, “Reducing Shrinkage in Plastic Injection
Moulding using Taguchi Method in Tata Magic Head Light”, International Journal of
Science and Research (IJSR), India Online ISSN: 2319-7064, Volume 2 Issue 2, Page
no. 107-110.

[5]. Rishi Pareek, Jaiprakash Bhamniya, “Optimization of Injection Moulding Process using
Taguchi and ANOVA”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,
Volume 4, Issue 1, ISSN 2229-5518.

[6]. Wu-Lin Chen, Chin-Yin Huang, “Finding efficient frontier of process parameters for
plastic injection molding”, Springer open journal, Journal of Industrial Engineering
International.

[7]. Harshal P. Kale, Dr. Umesh V. Hambire, “Review on Optimization of Injection Molding
Process Parameter for Reducing Shrinkage of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
material”, International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064,
Volume 4 Issue 4.

71
[8]. Anand Kr Dwiwedi, Sunil Kumar, “Practical application of Taguchi method for
optimization of process parameters in Injection Molding Machine for PP material”
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) eISSN: 2395 -
0056 Volume: 02 Issue: 04.

[9]. Wen-Chin Chen1 & Manh-Hung Nguyen, “Optimization of the plastic injection molding
process using the Taguchi method, RSM, and hybrid GA-PSO” Springer, International
Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology. Verlag London.

[10]. Satadru Kashyap1 & Dilip Datta, “Process parameter optimization of plastic
injection Molding: a review” Springer, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering &
Technology.

[11]. Shih-Chih Nian , Chih-Yang Wu, “Warpage control of thinwalled injection molding
using local mold temperatures” Elsevier, International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer , Page no. 102–110.

[12]. S.H. Tang , Y.J. Tan, S.M. Sapuan, “The use of Taguchi method in the design of plastic
injection mould for reducing Warpage”, Elsevier, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, Page No: 418–426.

[13]. Hasan Oktem, Tuncay Erzurumlu, “Application of Taguchi optimization technique in

determining plastic injection molding process parameters for a thin-shell part”,
Elsevier, Materials and Design ,Page No:1271–1278.

[14]. B. Berginc a, Z. Kampus, “The use of the Taguchi approach to determine the influence
of injection-moulding parameters on the properties of green parts”, Journal of
Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Volume 15, Issue 1-2.

[15]. B. Ozcelik, T. Erzurumlu, “Comparison of the Warpage optimization in the plastic

injection molding using ANOVA, neural network model and genetic algorithm”,
Elsevier, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Page no: 437–445.

72
[16]. S.L.MOK, C K Wong, “Application of artificial neural network and fuzzy logic in a
case-based system for initial process parameter setting of injection molding”, Journal
of Intelligent manufacturing, 13, page no 165-176.

[17]. S. L. Mok and C. K. Kwong, “Review of Research in the Determination of Process

Parameters for Plastic Injection Molding”, Advances in Polymer Technology, Vol. 18,
No. 3, Page no:225–236.

[18]. Chris M. Seaman, Alan A. Desrochers, “Multi objective Optimization of a Plastic

Injection Molding Process”, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. VOL.
2.

[19]. Xuan-Phuong Dang, “General frameworks for optimization of plastic injection molding
process parameters”, Elsevier, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory , Page no.
15–27.

[20]. Y. P. Tidke, A.V.Dhote, “Study and Optimization of Process Parameters in Plastic

Injection Moulding- A Review, “International Journal For Research In applied science
And Engineering Technology (IJRAS ET)”, Vol. 2 Issue IV, ISSN: 2321-9653.

[21]. Yi-Qi Wang, “Optimization of plastic injection molding process parameters for
manufacturing a brake booster valve body”, Elsevier, Materials and Design, Page no.
313–317.

[22]. Sanjay N. Lahoti, Prof. M.D.Nadar, “Optimization for plastic injection molding
process parameters”, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and
Studies, E-ISSN2249–897, Page no. 63-65.

[23]. Harshal P.Kale, Umesh V. Hambire, “Optimization of injection moulding process for
reducing shrinkage of high density polyethylene (HDPE) material”, International
Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092, Volume 5,
Issue-6.

73
[24]. Junhui Liu, Xindu Chen, Zeqin Lin, and Shipu Diao, “Multi objective optimization of
injection molding process parameters for the precision manufacturing of plastic optical
lens", Hindawi Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 2834013, 13 pages.
[25]. D.Venkatesa Prabu, A.Sathishkumar, “Design Enhancement and Optimization of
Plastic Injection Moulding”, IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development, ISSN :2321-0613, Vol. 4, Issue 12.
[26]. Sokkalingam Rajalingam, Pandian Vasant, “Optimization of Injection molding process
parameters for a plastic cell phone housing component”, Published by the American
Institute of Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings 1787, 080021.
[27]. Jithin K, Kannakumar K, “Parameter Optimization of Injection Mold Using Concurrent
Approach”, IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering &
Technology, Vol. 3 Issue 12, ISSN : 2348 – 7968.
[28]. Mr. Aditya M. Darekar, Prof. T. S. Venkatesh, “Review of Optimization Aspects for
Plastic Injection Molding Process”, RACST – Engineering Science and Technology:
An International Journal (ESTIJ), ISSN: 2250-3498 Vol.5.
[29]. M. Stanek, D. Manas, “Optimization of Injection Molding Process” international
journal of mathematics and computers in simulation, Issue 5, Volume 5.
[30]. Alireza Akbarzadeh and Mohammad Sadeghi, “Parameter Study in Plastic Injection
Molding Process using Statistical Methods and IWO Algorithm” International Journal
of Modelling and Optimization, Vol. 1.
[31]. Ching-Piao Chen , Ming-Tsan Chuang, “Simulation and experimental study in
determining injection molding process parameters for thin-shell plastic parts via design
of experiments analysis” , Elsevier, Expert Systems with Applications ,Page no:
10752–10759.
[32]. J.Jin, a, H.Y.Yu, “Optimization of Plastic Injection Molding Process Parameters for
Thin-Wall Plastics Injection Molding”, Advanced Materials Research Volume 69-70
(2009) page no:525529 Online: 2009-05-05 ,Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland.

74
[33]. Yi mei, Zhi shan, “The Optimization of Plastic Injection Molding Process Based on
Support Vector Machine and Genetic Algorithm”, International Conference on
Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation IEEE, DOI 10.1109/ICICTA.

[34]. M. V. Kavade, S. D. Kadam, “Parameter Optimization of Injection Molding of

Polypropylene by using Taguchi Methodology” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN: 2278-1684 Volume 4, Issue 4 ,Page no. 49-58.

[35]. Radhwan Hussin, Rozaimi Mohd Saad, “An Optimization of Plastic Injection Molding
Parameters Using Taguchi Optimization Method” Asian Transactions on Engineering
(ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume 02 Issue 05.

[36]. Rashi A.Yadav, S.V.Joshi, “Recent Methods for Optimization of Plastic Injection
Molding Process - A Literature Review”, International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research Volume 3, Issue 12, ISSN 2229-5518.

[37]. Mr. M.G. Rathi, Mr. Manoj Damodar Salunke, “Analysis of Injection Moulding
Process Parameters”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT) Vol. 1 Issue 8, ISSN: 2278-0181.

75
 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

[1]. Shambhu kumar singh and Er. Ashok Kumar (2020), “A Review on Parameter
Optimization of Injection Moulding for Polypropylene Toothbrush Using Taguchi
Method, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology” Volume: 07,
Issue: 09, Sep. 2020, e-ISSN: 2395-0056, p-ISSN: 2395-0072.

[2]. Shambhu kumar singh and Er. Ashok Kumar (2020), “Parameter Optimization of
Injection Moulding for Polypropylene(PP) Toothbrush Using Taguchi Method,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology” Volume: 07, Issue: 09,
Sep. 2020, e-ISSN: 2395-0056, p-ISSN: 2395-0072.

76