See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259298733

Journal of Injection Molding Technology, 2002

Article  in  Journal of Injection Molding Technology · December 2013

CITATION READS
1 4,847

1 author:

Pei Jen Wang

National Tsing Hua University
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,015 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart Manufacture View project

Wave Front Measurement in Optical Lenses View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pei Jen Wang on 16 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding
Based on Neural Networks Optimization
JUI-MING LIANG and PEI-JEN WANG

Department of Power Mechanical Engineering

National Tsing Hua University
101, Sec. II, Kuang Fu Road
Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Although process control has been extensively studied in injection molding, the
process still relies on experienced engineers to tune the processing parameters on
the shop floor today. Hence, due to the inconsistent product quality, excessive
manpower is still needed for meeting production requirements in the industry. In
this paper, an optimization algorithm based on two-linked Radial Based Function
Networks (RBFN) models with multi-losses criteria capable of controlling the part
quality has been studied. The objective is to automatically control the process with
little operator intervention. First, processing parameters, geometry of the mold, and
properties of resins are entered into a Computer Aided Engineering program for
finding the processing window. Design of Experiment procedures are conducted
with the CAE results for using inputs and outputs on training of networks in order
to establish both a process controller and a quality predictor. Then, the controller
and predictor are employed for on-line regulating part qualities. Final experimental
results have indicated that the controller can automatically adjust the machine set-
tings and reduce the fluctuations of part qualities from shot to shot. Conclusively,
the product qualities are satisfactorily controlled under no operator intervention.

INTRODUCTION complex machine dynamics. More recently, the effort

T he injection molding process has been widely
adopted as the standard method for making high
quality, value-added commercial or industrial plastics
parts in the market today. The rationale might be
based upon the fact that with the advent of Computer
Aided Engineering systems, injection-molding process
can successfully be applied for mass-produced parts
with extremely complex design. Meanwhile, the proc-
ess has also been well known for its complex process
dynamics and non-linear material properties, so that
the prediction and control of quality of the parts is
still yet needed for further exploration. In practice, the
traditionally approach to control the part quality is to
hook up a closed-loop controller for monitoring and
regulating the important machine variables, such as
mold and barrel temperatures, injection velocity pro-
file, hydraulic pressure profile, and etc. In the past,
the interactions of these closed-loop variables on the
final quality of parts have been widely studied both
experimentally and theoretically by Sanschagrin (1) and
Kyle (2). However, the published results only showed a
sketchy relationship between the process variables and
the measurable part qualities for specific mold geome-
try on selected materials together with unexplored
of incorporating expert system into automated injec-
tion molding process has been reported by Speight and
Reisinger (3). In their paper, CAE systems embedded
with experimental designs and heuristic knowledge are
bundled into the MPX concept for practical applications
on the shop floor. The ultimate goal is to automate the
optimization procedure of the process parameters.
However, artificial intelligence for the process control
applications is still immature considering practical
implementation on the shop floor. Generally speaking,
the difficulties of process control in injection molding
mainly arise from the lack of simple and quantitative
relationships among the machine settings, part ge-
ometry, material properties, and part qualities. Al-
though the rheological behavior of materials has been
vigorously studied as reported in the literatures, the
complex nature of process dynamics makes the ac-
complishment of part quality control by trial and error
methods impossible. In addition, the variations of
process parameters due to change in resin properties
from batch to batch eventually result in severe varia-
tions on the part quality in mass production.
The objective of this paper is to circumvent the above
mentioned process control problems by developing an
intelligent process control system, namely Inverse

58 JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding
Neural Optimal Control System (INOCS), based upon
neural-networks acting as the self-learning models for
the injection molding machines. Basically, the INOCS
consists of a closed-loop controller, a quality predictor
based upon the neural-networks, and an optimization
calculator consists of a performance index with multi-
loss function. Configuration-wise speaking, the outputs
of the closed-loop controller are machine settings, while
the inputs are the estimated performance index (L ),
the desired performance index (L c ), and the machine
processing-parameters from the previous injection
cycle. In addition, optimal machine settings are calcu-
lated via iterative schemes to indirectly control the part
qualities from cycle to cycle. In Fig. 1, the structure of
the INOCS is illustrated to depict that the closed-loop
controller regulates the settings of the injection mold-
ing machine via an optimal control set (U ) including
injection velocity (Vi ), holding time (th ), and holding
pressure (Pp ). On the other hand, the quality predictor
estimates the part qualities (X ), such as part weight
and sink marks, based upon the measured process
parameters. The output (Y ) is the total loss (L ) repre-
sented by a loss function that explicitly shows the de-
viations from the desired qualities. The INOCS on-line
calculates the total loss (L ) based upon the output (Y )
and decides the machine settings via optimization of L
in the next few injection cycles.
In practice, the process engineers have to figure out
all the pertinent process parameters for production
after the basic design of the part has come off the
drawing board. Quite often, before searching for the
initial set of process parameters, CAE tools are em-
ployed for estimating the initial processing windows
for the process parameters. Since the part has been
designed for a given specific mold geometry, the CAE
tools can estimate the processing window for the mold
with the appropriate resins and fulfill the basic quality
requirements. Hereby, Design of Experiments method
(abbreviated as DOE) is employed for screening the
pertinent process parameters for the specific mold
geometry. The DOE experiments are mainly used for
checking the importance level of each pertinent process
Fig. 1. Schematic structure of the INOCS consisting of inverse neural optimal controller, injection molding machine, quality predictor,
and multi-loss function.
JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1
parameter and quality indicator. The same inputs em-
ployed for the DOE procedures will be later used for
training the quality predictor and determining the ini-
tial gains of the controller when on-line experiments
are conducted. At this stage, it is important to note
that the DOE procedures should lead to all the perti-
nent process parameters as well as the pre-selected
part qualities. The quantitative relationships between
the qualities and the process parameters are then
determined via neural networks with proper training
sequences. With all the predicted qualities being quan-
titatively treated as the measured qualities, an opti-
mization scheme is then adopted for determining the
updates on the process parameters for the next cycle.
During the on-line process control mode, the INOCS
should be able to not only automatically adjust the
settings on the injection molding machines but also
produce parts with consistent qualities. In this paper,
the details of establishing and verifying the INOCS are
carefully illustrated and described by simulations and
experiments.
NEURAL NETWORKS
The applications of neural networks on the mathe-
matical modeling for various industrial processes have
been reported for years in the past (4–7). It is interest-
ing to note that most of the literature has concluded
that both the modeling accuracy and the stability of
convergence for the neural-networks are better than
the other modeling methods. In particular, published
works from Schnerr et al. (8) and Wang et al. (9, 10)
have both indicated the success of neural networks
on modeling the part qualities in injection molding
applications. Therefore, the neural networks are in-
tended for not only modeling the process dynamics
but also reversing the corresponding control efforts in
this paper.
Radial Basis Functions Networks
Among the many types of neural networks, Radial
Basis Functions Networks (RBFN) have been popular
59

tools for modeling industrial processes because of
the robustness on convergence for multi-variable sys-
tems. Figure 2 shows a schematic architecture of the
RBFN neural networks accompanied with receptive
field-units in the hidden layer. The activation level of
each receptive field unit is defined as follows:
wi ⫽ R i 1 x 2 ⫽ R i 1储 x ⫺ c i 储 >i 2,
i ⫽ 1, 2, … , H.
wherex is a multi-dimensional input vector,ci a vec-
tor with the same dimensions asx , H the number of
radial basis functions/receptive field units, and Ri the
radial basis function with a maximum located atci . In
general, Gaussian-type functions are chosen for Ri (•)
and defined as follows:
储 x ⫺ c i 储2
R i 1x 2 ⫽ exp c⫺
2 2i
As a result, the activation level of the radial basis
function wi in Eq 1, given by the i th hidden unit, is at
the maximum when the input vectorx is located at
the centerci as shown in Eq 2. Hence, the outputs of
the RBFN can be calculated as a weighted-sum asso-
ciated with each receptive field as follows:
H H
f 1x 2 ⫽ a Vi wi ⫽ a Vi R i 1x 2
i ⫽1 i ⫽1
where Vi is the weighted value with respect to the i th
receptive field unit. For a given data set, the proce-
dure to find the corresponding weighted values and
coefficients of the basis functions is defined as the
training. The training is to determine the weighted val-
ues for accomplishing the desired mapping between
the inputs andoutputs. By employing a least-square
method, a quadratic error function E calculated based
upon the difference between the target outputs and
the networks outputs is expressed by E
 1/2(Tp 
Yp )2, where Tp is the target value and Yp is the outputs
of the neural networks. Because the details of training
procedures have been published elsewhere, elaboration
for the training procedure is skipped. After carefully
reviewing the training procedures, Fast-error Back
Propagation Learning with momentum acceleration has
been chosen as the algorithm for training the neural
networks in this study.
CONTROLLER STRUCTURE
Before analyzing the control strategy for the injec-
tion-molding process, the most essential steps are
identification of effective inputs together with the as-
sociated outputs, selection of appropriate loss func-
tion, and analysis of performance and stability for the
controller. With the help of neural networks described
in the previous section, the process controller is es-
tablished according to the model parameters obtained
by the training procedures. In this section, the inputs
and outputs, the losses function, and the multi-loss
function based upon a relaxation factor are briefly in-
troduced in the following paragraphs.
60
Jui-Ming Liang and Pei-Jen Wang
Inputs and Outputs
For fulfilling the purposes of process control, the in-
puts applied to the controller could be either quali-
tative or quantitative. The qualitative inputs can only
be abstracted from a unique set of data based upon
the observations for a particular mold with given geom-
etry and resin. Meanwhile, the quantitative inputs are
(1)
sensor-based measurements for a continuous time
interval during the injection cycles. Since qualitative
inputs usually can only be off-line measured when
the process is completely stopped, they are usually
hard to be adopted for the process control variables.
Therefore, only quantitative inputs are taken as the
process variables in this study. In practice, the quanti-
tative inputs can be partitioned into two sets: the proc-
d
ess commands ui (t ), and the process variables ki (t ) as
(2)
described by Seaman et al. (11). It is assumed that, in
most of the process control problems, all the inputs are
considered to be continuous functions over the cycle
interval [0, tc ]. While the injection molding process is
cyclic, the process is usually indicated by a cycle num-
ber. Hence, the process commands and variables dur-
ing the l th cycle are defined as follows:
u il 1t 2 僆 u ( C 30, t c 1l 2 4 i ⫽ 1, 2, … , m Is (4)
k il 1t 2 僆 k ( C 30, t c 1l 2 4
(3)
i ⫽ 1, 2, … , m I p (5)
where u is the process command constrained by any
actuator limits; k is the process variables contrained
by closed-loop stability; and, tc (l ) is the period of the
l th cycle.
According to the discussions published by Seaman
et al. (11), there are three different types of outputs in
a control system: namely the quality variables, quality
attributes, and process variables. Quality variables,
such as part weight and dimensions, could be meas-
ured consecutively from cycle to cycle. If there are Pv
quality variables being measured, the space of the
quality variable is defined as follows:
qVi 1l 2 僆 QV ( R P V and i ⫽ 1, 2, … , PV (6)
where qVi (l ) is the measurement of quality for the l th
cycle; and, the Q V is the set of all measurable part
qualities. It is noted that each desired quality variable
Q V T is assumed to be only measured once per cycle as
indicated in the following equation.
Q VT ( Q V (7)
On the other hand, the quality attributes, classified as
qualities that are not measurable, could be quantified
between the real number 0 and 1. Therefore, if pA is
quality attributes, it could be quantified as the follow-
ings.
q A i 僆 QA ( R pA ⫽ 30, 14
i ⫽ 1, 2, … , pA (8)
QAT ⫽ 3 04.
(9)
In Eq 8, qAi is the quality attribute function for the i th
attribute. In practice, if the i th part is to be defined as
JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1
 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding
a good part, all the element of QA must be as close
to zero as possible. Therefore, the target set for the
quality attributes QAT should be defined by Eq 9. In
addition, all process variables yi are measurable con-
tinuously throughout each cycle defined as follows.
y il 1t 2 僆 y ( C 3 0, tc 1l 2 4 i ⫽ 1, 2, … , mv (10)
where y is the set of process variables for the l th cycle
consisting of mv members.
To successfully construct the neural-networks model
for an unknown process, the modeling procedures
must be based upon an assumption that there exists
at least one set of inputs/outputs data representing
the dynamics of the process. Based upon the previous
data sets, the neural-networks model can then be es-
tablished by the training procedures. It is noted that
the Inverse Process Neural Control (IPNC) method for
optimizing productivity and part quality in CNC turn-
ing process was successfully applied and reported by
Azouzi and Guillot (7). Having adopted the IPNC con-
cept, this study has intended to establish a similar
optimal process controller based upon the neural net-
works with optimization schemes for the injection
molding process. Once the pertinent process variables
and specified indexes are provided, the process con-
troller, as shown in Fig. 2a, should optimize the con-
trol efforts and regulate the part quality under exter-
nal disturbances or parameters drifts.
Quality Predictions
In the injection molding process, process informa-
tion such as ram velocity, ram position, hydraulic pres-
sure, melt pressure, and melt temperature, is usually
monitored and recorded throughout the cycles as the
substantial process variables for predicting the prod-
uct quality. Therefore, it is quite common to adopt a
handful of process variables as the quality indicators
that provide information on qualities for predicting the
deviations in product qualities. In the past, monitoring
of the quality indicators has been reported with suc-
cessful results with exception that high-cost or un-
availability of direct measurement on part quality is
the dilemma for this type of control (12, 13). An alter-
native approach to circumvent the difficulty is to es-
tablish the relationships between the qualities and the
quality indicators by a quality predictor based upon
the neural networks as described in the following par-
agraphs.
After being carefully evaluated, the quality predictor
as shown in Fig. 2b has been based upon the RBFN
with 8 inputs, 10 hidden units, and 2 outputs, for pre-
dicting the weight and the sink mark index as a test
example in this study. To accomplish the goal of qual-
ity prediction with acceptable accuracy, all the inputs
to the networks must be screened for level of impor-
tance via the DOE method. And, the screening proc-
ess for the inputs is elaborated in the section of exper-
imental verifications. After the estimated part qualities
are calculated with the help of the quality predictor,
JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1
the predicted qualities are then converted into total
loss, serving as a performance index for optimal con-
trol.
Loss Functions
Because the predicted qualities may have more than
one variable or attribute, all the predicted qualities
should be converted into a single quality index in order
to further apply optimization schemes for controlling
the machine. In general, the process dynamics de-
scribed with mathematical representations are defined
as follows:
y l 1t 2 ⫽ H 3u l 1t 2, k l 1t 2 4 , (11)
and
H : u  k → y. (12)
where H represents the transfer function for the proc-
ess dynamics.
Because all the quality variables and the quality at-
tributes defined in the previous sections are the causal
effects of the process variables y, the mathematical
mappings are defined as follows:
q V,A 1t 2 ⫽ G 3y l 1t 2 4 (13)
and,
G : y → R q V,A. (14)
where G is a vector function that maps the qualities
into a real number with respect to each of the qV ,
quality variables and qA , quality attributes.
According to the cost analysis theory, a quadratic
loss function could provide a good estimate for the
total losses given as follows.
L 1y2 ⫽ k 1y ⫺ m2 2 (15)
where m is the target value for the product quality y.
If a particular product has a maximum deviation 
from the target value corresponding to a maximum loss
A, then the constant k in Eq 15 is defined as follows.
k
A/2 (16)
Optimization and Performance Calculation
As described in the Introduction, it is very difficult
to find the optimal set of process parameters in injec-
tion molding due to the complex dynamics involved
in the process. Nevertheless, optimization methods
by making use of a performance index still could be
applied for searching the set of optimal process pa-
rameters. Inspired by the Taguchi Method for defining
the loss functions, we still could employ a perform-
ance index for representing the losses incurred from
the part qualities. Hence, the losses can be defined as
the sum of attributes and variables as follows.
L total 1l 2 ⫽ L i 3q A i 1l 2 4 ⫹ L j 3q Vj 1l 2 4
⫽ L A i 1l 2 ⫹ L Vj 1l 2 i ⫽ 1, 2, … , m ; j ⫽ 1, 2, … , n (17)
61
 Jui-Ming Liang and Pei-Jen Wang

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. Schematic structure of the RBFN neural networks employed in this study; (a) is for the inverse process controller, and (b) is for
the quality predictor.

62 JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding
(a)
Fig. 3. (a) The structure and sensors location of the rectangular plate mold with dimensions of 120  40  1.73 mm molded by a
side-gated runner; (b) Graphic output of the wire-frame geometry for CAE simulations.
Since the main objective of the process controller is
to find a stable machine setting, and then make sure
the machine produces good quality parts, the process
controller must minimize the total loss in Eq 17. It
should be noted that the total loss L total is usually
greater than zero even at its global minimum due to
non-zero cost concept. Therefore, by setting the de-
sired loss L t 1 to zero, it would make the controller
send an erratic change and hence cause undesired
fluctuations on the process parameters. However, if
the desired loss L t 1 has been set to the same value
as L t , then the system will have poor performance due
to slow update. Therefore, a strategy is employed for
minimizing the loss L t by updating the L t 1 according
to the following equation.
L t 1
L t (18)
In Eq 18,  is a relaxation factor with range set be-
tween 0 and 1. And, Eq 18 should guarantee that L t 1
is always less than L t for the next cycle. Certainly, all
the above theoretical derivations or approximations
would require experimental verifications in greater
extent
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS
A single cavity side-gated rectangular plate mold was
employed for the process control verifications. The
mold was specially built for experimental verifications
and instrumented with four cavity-pressure transduc-
ers in the cavity for pressure monitoring purposes as
shown in Fig. 3a. The dimensions of the plate cavity
are 120  40  1.73 mm. The geometry of the plate
mold was converted into CAD file for the CAE simu-
lations needed by the modeling procedure. Figure 3b
is the graphic output of wire-frame model generated
by the CMOLD system, copyrighted by CMOLD Inc.,
Ithaca, N.Y.
JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1
(b)
Materials and Equipment
Owing to the limitation on available experimental
materials, the molding resin has been chosen as
COMALLOY 110-3220N PP20% GF, produced by
Himont Inc., because of the availability in the CMOLD
databank. The instrumented mold was mounted on a
BOY 50T injection-molding machine capable of deliv-
ering 550 kN clamping force and attached with a proc-
ess controller (Model: MOPAC 21 made by Moog Inc.,
East Aurora, New York). In addition, a data-acquisi-
tion unit embedded into a PC was linked to the MOPAC
21 injection controller for data collection and control.
A schematic drawing of the equipment is shown in Fig.
4 including the BOY 50T machine, the mold-coolant
temperature controller made by STERLCO Inc., the
data-acquisition unit supplied by ational Instrument
Inc., and the IBM compatible PC. Because the data-
acquisition unit has sixteen 12-bit single-ended A/D
channels set at 2 ms sampling period, all the perti-
nent process variables could be real-time recorded
throughout the complete injection cycle. In particular,
eight process variables, namely melt temperature (Tm),
mold temperature (Tw), hydraulic pressure (Ph), cavity
pressure (Pc), nozzle pressure (Pn), ram position (Yr),
ram speed (Vr) and mold separation (MS), were moni-
tored during the experimentation periods.
Among the process variables, Tm and Pn were
measured by a J-type thermocouple inserted into a
Dynisco pressure transducer flush mounted in the in-
jection nozzle. Tw was measured by a J-type thermo-
couple flush-mounted beneath the mold wall. And, Ph
was measured by a MOOG hydraulic pressure sensor
mounted at the outlet of the hydraulic servo value. Yr
was measured by a Schaevitz LVDT sensor mounted
on the back of the injection screw; Vr was a differen-
tial signal derived from the Yr. The mold separation,
MS, was measured by a Schaevitz LVDT sensor ( 1.25
63
 Jui-Ming Liang and Pei-Jen Wang

Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of the equipment including the injection molding machine, the mold coolant unit, the digital data proces-
sor, the data acquisition unit, and the PC.

mm range in displacement) mounted on the surface of Qualities and Loss Functions

the two mold halves for detecting the peak cavity pres- In this particular example, the part weight (Wt), and
sure. When the mold cavity was filled, the internal the maximum sink index (SImax) were chosen for rep-
pressure from the cavity as well as the runner system resenting the part quality due to simple plate geometry
might make the mold slightly open. Then, the distance of the part. It is assumed that the critical loss should
between the two mold halves is defined as the mold not exceed the total product cost. Now, it is assumed
separation. that for the rectangular plate mold, the mold cost is
Process Parameter Screening 0.3 $/part; the material cost is 0.15 $/part; the ma-
chine set-up cost is 0.05 $/part. That means, the
Initially, eight process parameters have been chosen, total cost C total is 0.5 $/part; and, so is the critical
namely mold open time, filling time, post-filling time, loss. In this case, the loss weighting values were as-
filling/post-filling switch point, holding-pressure, pack- sumed the same as shown in Table 1. The critical val-
ing time, melt temperature, and coolant temperature ues of part weight (Wt c ) and sink mark (SImaxc ) were
as the candidates for pertinent process parameters. also assumed to have the same standard deviation for
Then, the initial processing window for the rectangu- each quality characteristic. The quality loss functions
lar plate mold was determined by making use of the
CMOLD program. As described in the previous sec-
tions, the Design of Experiments with L18 (21  37 )
tests was conducted on the eight process parameters Table 1. Critical Values, Critical Losses, Loss Weightings (w)
to determine the upper and lower bound (18). The DOE and Loss Constants (k) Used in the Multi-Losses Function
Calculation in this Example; ⌬Wtc is Standard Deviation
results were analyzed via the ANOVA analysis with the Weight of Parts of the L25 DOE and SImaxc is Standard
S/N ratio on part weight being shown in Fig. 5. Ac- Deviation Sink Index of Parts of the L25 DOE.
cording to the ANOVA analysis results, the most im-
portant process parameters are the packing pressure Wtc (g) 0.159
Critical Values
SImaxc (%) 0.329
(Ph), the packing time (tp), and the fill time (tf ). Hence,
all the other process variables should be kept constant Critical Losses Lc ($) 0.5
throughout the experiments. For the selected process W1 0.5
parameters, the DOE analysis were conducted again Loss Weightings
W2 0.5
for the two qualities; and, the corresponding 5 31 par-
tial factorial tests and 5 checking tests denoted with k1 ($/g2 ) 2.310
Loss Constants
k2 ($/g2 ) 9.773
“*” are tabulated in Table 3 for illustration.

64 JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding

Fig. 5. Comparisons on the S/N ratio based upon the Taguchi method for part weight; the CAE results are employed for the ANOVA
analysis in this example.

including both the part weight and the maximum sink experimentally on the injection-molding machine for
index are shown in Fig. 6 and defined as follows. obtaining the complete process variables {L t 1, L t1,

L 1 1l 2 ⫽ k 1 1Wt 1l 2 2 2, k 1 ⫽ W1 L c >W t c2
L 2 1l 2 ⫽ k 2 1max_SI 1l 2 2 2, k 4 ⫽ W2 L c >max_SI c2
L total 1l 2 ⫽ L 1 1l 2 ⫹ L 2 1l 2
where l is the l th cycle. The values of k in the above
equations are tabulated in Table 1 in which the total
loss L total was contributed by deviation of part weight
and maximum sink index estimated by the quality
predictor.
Model Training and Checking
As a further step, the simulated DOE results and the
process variables tabulated in Table 3 were conducted
Ft t1, Ppt1, Pt t1} tabulated in Table 2. To train the
(19) process controller shown in Fig. 2a, the part I (Con-
troller Inputs) in Table 2 was employed for the inputs,
(20)
and the part II (Process parameters) was the outputs
(21) that were set on the BOY machine. In Table 2, sixty
sets of experimental data were employed for training
and checking the three-layer RBFN controller con-
structed by 5 input, 8 hidden and 3 output nodes.
Again, the details for the training and checking proce-
dures are skipped. It should be noted that the num-
ber of the hidden nodes was determined by examining
the smallest root mean square error (RMSE) via some
trail and error observations. Similar to the polynomial
curve-fitting problem, the tradeoff between the number
of hidden nodes and the numerical round-off errors
are made according to the RMSE values (20). As for

Fig. 6. Schematic plots of losses based upon deviation of weight, and maximum sink index described by Eqs 21 and 22.

JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1 65

 Jui-Ming Liang and Pei-Jen Wang

Table 2. Sixty Sets of Experimental Data for Training the Neural Controller; Checking Data Points are Denoted with *, and Ltⴚ1 and
L t ⴙ1 are Calculated Based on Table 3 Using Eq 21. For Conciseness Reason, the Data from No. 6 to No. 45 are Not Tabulated.

Controller Inputs Process Parameters

No L t 1 Lt Ft t1 Ppt1 Pt t1 Ff t Pp t Pf t

1 $5.11983 $1.57235 0.7 4 3.5 0.9 6 5

2 $5.11983 $5.11983 0.7 4 3.5 0.7 4 3.5
3 $0.20166 $5.11983 0.7 4.5 4 0.7 4 3.5
4 $0.20166 $0.20166 0.7 4.5 4 0.7 4.5 4
5 $2.36168 $0.20166 0.7 5 4.5 0.7 4.5 4
— — — — — — — — —
46 $3.15106 $3.15106 0.9 5 4 0.9 5 4
47 $1.96058 $3.15106 0.9 5.5 4.5 0.9 5 4
48 $1.96058 $1.96058 0.9 5.5 4.5 0.9 5.5 4.5
49 $1.57235 $1.96058 0.9 6 5 0.9 5.5 4.5
50 $1.57235 $1.57235 0.9 6 5 0.9 6 5
51* $2.24681 $4.83873 0.7 6 4.5 0.9 4 4
52* $2.24681 $2.24681 0.7 6 4.5 0.7 6 4.5
53* $4.17230 $2.24681 0.75 4.5 3.5 0.7 6 4.5
54* $4.17230 $4.17230 0.75 4.5 3.5 0.75 4.5 3.5
55* $1.12354 $4.17230 0.8 5.5 5 0.75 4.5 3.5
56* $1.12354 $1.12354 0.8 5.5 5 0.8 5.5 5
57* $0.41933 $1.12354 0.85 5 5.5 0.8 5.5 5
58* $0.41933 $0.41933 0.85 5 5.5 0.85 5 5.5
59* $4.83873 $0.41933 0.9 4 4 0.85 5 5.5
60* $4.83873 $4.83873 0.9 4 4 0.9 4 4

the convergence criterion of RBFN training, checking Process Control Experimentation

experiments were conducted within the processing win-
dows with the inputs selected differently from those of
the training experiments. Then, the minimum RMSE
values of both training and checking could be employed
for the convergence criterion. Figure 7 shows the learn-
ing RMSE getting smaller as epoch increases. On the
contrary, the checking RMSE decreases initially, and
with more training epochs, it grows up again. It is
noted in Fig. 7 that the minimum checking RMSE oc-
curs at 100 epochs for the value of 0.19 (i.e. 19% of
RMSE).
To train the quality predictor, the same procedure
for training controller as described in the previous
paragraph was conducted again with all the pertinent
data being tabulated in Table 3. However, it should be
noted that because the available process variables on
the experimental machine were more than the vari-
ables that the quality predictor would need, some de-
rived quality indicators were adopted for the quality
predictor. Hence, twenty-five sets of data for training
and five sets of data denoted with “*” for checking are
shown in Table 3 with the quality indicators extracted
from the experimental data. It should be noted that
the maximum mold separation (MSmax ), the minimum
ram position (Yrmin ), integral of the ram velocity by
position (
Vrdx), the maximum hydraulic pressure
(Phmax ), and the maximum nozzle pressure (Pnmax ) are
the derived quality indicators. It is noted that the
quality predictor was trained by using the inputs and
the outputs listed in Table 3. And, the final results
showed the best RBFN would need 10 hidden nodes.
In addition, the convergence of the training are shown
in Fig. 8 with plots for the training and checking RMSE;
and, the checking RMSE has the minimum at 2000
epochs for value at 0.08.
After all the essential blocks of the INOCS were es-
tablished, the process control algorithms were coded
into control programs that later was transferred into
the IBM compatible PC. The verification experiments
were conducted on the BOY 50T machine located in
the laboratory at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
As mentioned in Eq 17 and Eq 18, the total loss has
been defined and set to a required minimal bound.
With the random-given initial process parameters re-
stricted in the processing window, the INOCS was
started for continuous injection cycles and tested with
different values on the relaxation factor  for a series
of experiments. In addition, experimental runs were
done for stability tests and reliability observations for
weeks. Conclusively speaking, the INOCS has accom-
plished the control objectives and given valuable ex-
perimental results for future applications.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the previous section, a control program has been
written to regulate the part qualities on a plate mold
based upon the process model developed above. Be-
cause of the availability of the CMOLD materials data-
bank, the INOCS controller has been successfully es-
tablished with all the necessary procedures conducted
step by step for a polypropylene based resin. Even
though the assumptions applied to the current experi-
mental case might be overwhelming, the INOCS con-
troller was still able to perform correctly. Meanwhile,
the procedures for collecting the experimental data to-
gether with training for both the controller and the
predictor might seem to be too cumbersome; however,
it should be noted that the training results do provide
a solid background for the INOCS controller on suc-
cessful control of the machine.

66 JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding

Fig. 7. Plots of the learning and checking RMSE for the training of neural controller; solid lines are the learning RMSE and dashed
lines are the checking RMSE.

Table 3. Thirty Sets of Data for Training the Quality Predictor; Checking Data are Denoted with *, and All the Derived Process
Variables Including MSmax , Yrmin , ∫ Vdx, Phmax , and Pnmax Being Developed from the Profiles of the Process Variables and the Quality
Variable Wt are Based on the Experiments Results, But the Quality Attribute Sink Index, SI, is Based on CAE Simulation Results.

Quality Indicators Part Qualities

No. MSmax Yrmin ∫ Vdx Phmax Pnmax Ft Pp Pt SImax (%) Wt (g)

1 0.25 19.99 711.76 6.58 47.11 0.7 4 3.5 1.39941 8.4588

2 1.19 19.61 711.88 6.59 47.14 0.7 4.5 4 1.2882 8.5622
3 7.35 19.14 713.95 6.54 46.69 0.7 5 4.5 1.0108 8.6925
4 30 18.73 717.63 6.65 47.07 0.7 5.5 5 0.64732 8.8547
5 56.28 18.36 721.21 6.65 47.3 0.7 6 5.5 0.37782 9.0356
6 0.26 20.07 665 6.58 46.73 0.75 4 4 1.3857 8.4968
7 0.87 19.45 665.22 6.59 46.74 0.75 4.5 4.5 1.2864 8.5999
8 5.28 19.18 667.25 6.61 46.78 0.75 5 5 0.69465 8.7184
9 28.96 18.7 672.23 6.55 46.48 0.75 5.5 5.5 0.40144 8.8881
10 55.48 18.26 676.59 6.59 46.62 0.75 6 3.5 0.97589 8.7942
11 0.09 19.91 624.96 6.54 46.27 0.8 4 4.5 1.1425 8.5382
12 1.04 19.45 624.48 6.47 46.05 0.8 4.5 5 0.7374 8.6491
13 6.42 18.99 627.7 6.44 45.93 0.8 5 5.5 0.42895 8.732
14 30.21 18.77 631.47 6.44 45.96 0.8 5.5 3.5 1.0764 8.815
15 58.58 18.12 638.66 6.4 45.86 0.8 6 4 0.99833 8.8865
16 0.04 19.79 590.36 6.36 45.49 0.85 4 5 0.77543 8.5684
17 1.14 19.51 589.84 6.38 45.36 0.85 4.5 5.5 0.45746 8.6404
18 6.56 19.04 591.24 6.33 45.32 0.85 5 3.5 1.1707 8.702
19 31.13 18.51 596.06 6.34 45.27 0.85 5.5 4 1.0738 8.774
20 58.05 18.19 601.13 6.33 45.82 0.85 6 4.5 0.81895 8.9414
21 0.15 19.8 557.99 6.25 44.68 0.9 4 5.5 0.47863 8.5759
22 1.07 19.39 557.96 6.27 44.92 0.9 4.5 3.5 1.2722 8.5028
23 6.13 19.04 560.39 6.29 44.94 0.9 5 4 1.1626 8.6513
24 28.78 18.66 564.7 6.29 44.97 0.9 5.5 4.5 0.89121 8.8194
25 55.93 18.2 569.56 6.27 46.05 0.9 6 5 0.56443 8.9984
26* 55.74 18.09 724.73 6.62 47.19 0.7 6 4.5 0.84514 8.953
27* 0.84 19.61 667.84 6.49 46.4 0.75 4.5 3.5 1.2835 8.512
28* 27.18 18.72 631.11 6.41 45.77 0.8 5.5 5 0.62961 8.8517
29* 5.14 19.11 592.26 6.44 45.58 0.85 5 5.5 0.41943 8.7423
30* 0.26 19.94 557.75 6.33 45.22 0.9 4 4 1.3808 8.4949

JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1 67

 Jui-Ming Liang and Pei-Jen Wang

Fig. 8. Plots of the learning and checking RMSE for the training of quality predictor; solid lines are the learning RMSE and dashed
lines are the checking RMSE.

Nevertheless, based upon the experimental observa-
tions, the relaxation factor  is significant for keeping
the stability of the process controller. If  is chosen to
be large in value, the control system performed poorly
and even corrupted afterwards. On the contrary, if the
relaxation factor  is chosen to be close to zero, the
total loss could be trapped on a local minimum such
that the process parameters stop updating. Figure 9
indicates the effects of relaxation factor  (ranged
from 0.1 to 0.4) on the control responses. When the 
is set between 0.1 to 0.3, the controller becomes sta-
ble and could rapidly converge to the near minimum
total loss; but, when the  is larger than 0.3, the con-
troller becomes oscillatory or unstable. In all the ex-
periments, the process parameters, namely the filling
time, the packing time, and the packing pressure,
have been chosen as the inputs to INOCS controller
as mentioned above. Especially for the repeatability
tests, it should be noted that the desired loss L t 1 for
the next cycle is the last total loss multiplied by the
relaxation factor  (set to 0.1 most of the time), and
the inputs were arbitrarily chosen for the first initial
cycle.
In Fig. 10, it is noted that the dynamic responses of
the process parameters, namely the filling time, the
packing pressure, and the packing time, eventually
reach steady state after the first ten cycles. As for the
responses on the total loss, Fig. 11 shows the com-
parisons between the predicted total loss and the de-
sired total loss for the first thirty cycles; the controller
reached the minimal total loss after the first five cy-
cles. In Fig. 12, the dynamic responses on the calcu-
lated quality indicators, namely Msmax, Yrmin, Pnmax,
and Pcmax are shown with the same controller condi-
tions as indicated in Fig. 10. It should be mentioned
that the measured part weights are not shown be-
cause it is only one of the quality factors that needed
to be well controlled. In fact, the INOCS controller has
been successful on controlling the part weight as well
as the shrinkage according to the post-experimental
observations.
CONCLUSIONS
The Inverse Neural Optimal Control System (INOCS)
for the injection-molding process has been carefully
established, simulated, and verified in this investiga-
tion. This paper presents the basic structure, funda-
mental theory, and verification results for the INOCS
in depth and details. According to the proposed struc-
ture, the INOCS has to rely on the modeling accuracy of

68 JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding

Fig. 9. Plots of control responses on the total loss under the influences of the relaxation factor ; (a) 
0.1, (b) 
0.2, (c) 
0.3,
(d) 
0.4.

Fig. 10. Plots of dynamic responses of the process parameters along with cycle number after reaching the stable production condi-
tions; the symbols are for the Ft, Pp, Pt.

JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1 69

 Jui-Ming Liang and Pei-Jen Wang

Fig. 11. Comparison between the total loss, Lt, and desired total loss, Lt 1, from cycle 0 to cycle 30; all the experimental conditions
are the same as in Fig. 10.

Fig. 12. Plots of dynamic responses on quality variables, Msmax, Pnmax , Pcmax and Yrmin for the experimental run that corresponds to
the conditions the same as in Fig. 10.

70 JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1

 Self-Learning Control for Injection Molding
materials and computing efficiency of the CAE systems
because the quality predictor is initially determined
based upon the CAE simulations. However, the defi-
ciency due to CAE inaccuracy could be compensated
by on-line experimental procedures employed for re-
training the quality predictor. As long as the CAE sys-
tems could provide reliable results on part quality, the
proposed process control system can on-line regulate
the part quality, and thereby satisfy the production
requirements.
At the experimental verification stage, after the ini-
tial processing window for the given part has been
determined via initial CAE simulations, pertinent pa-
rameters in the processing window are then justified
according to the Taguchi method. Then, the process
controller and the quality predictor were ready for
training with the experiments scheduled by the appro-
priate DOE procedures. After the convergence crite-
rion has been satisfied, the INOCS were shown with
successful control results on illustrated example. Nev-
ertheless, if the controller started control with arbi-
trary initial states given in the processing window, the
INOCS controller with a relaxation factor  between
0.1 to 0.3 always stably converged to the minimum
total loss. Conclusively speaking, the proposed control
system could successfully meet the requirements on
minimal total loss, and still produce quality parts.
Therefore, this INOCS approach could be used for proc-
ess control of injection molding on the shop floor in
the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank Professor K. K. Wang and
Dr. C. A. Hieber at Cornell Injection Molding Program,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., for kindly providing
the laboratory and the equipment for the experimental
verifications in this study. In addition, this work has
JOURNAL OF INJECTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2002, Vol. 6, No. 1
View publication stats
been sponsored by the National Science Council in
Taiwan, R.O.C. under Grant No. NSC89-2216-E007-
053.
REFERENCES
1. B. Sanschagrin, Polym. Eng. Sci., 23, 8 (1983).
2. B. R. M. Kyle, Soc. of Plast. Eng., ANTEC Papers (1990).
3. R. G. Speight and L. Reisinger, Soc. of Plast. Eng.,
ANTEC Papers (2001).
4. J. Haeussler and J. Wortberg, Soc. of Plast. Eng., ANTEC
Papers (1993).
5. G. H. Choi, K. D. Lee, N. Chang, and S. G. Kim, CIRP
Annuals, 43, 1 (1994).
6. J. Haubler and J. Wortberg, Soc. of Plast. Eng., ANTEC
Papers (1996).
7. R. Azouzi and M. Guillot, Trans. of ASME, J. Manu. Sci.
and Engn., 120 (1998).
8. O. Schnerr and W. Michaeli, Soc. of Plast. Eng., ANTEC
Papers (1998).
9. P. J. Wang and J. Y. Lin, CAE and Intelligent Processing
of Polym. Mat., ASME Proc., 79 (1997).
10. P. J. Wang and J. M. Liang, Soc. of Plast. Eng., ANTEC
Papers (1999).
11. C. M. Seaman, A. A. Desrochers, and G. F. List, IEEE
Transactions on Syst., Man. and Cybern., 23, 2, (1993).
12. H. Potente, J. Wortberg, and J. Haubler, Soc. of Plast.
Eng., ANTEC Papers (1993).
13. B. Souder and S. Woll, Soc. of Plast. Eng., ANTEC Pa-
pers (1994).
14. J. C. Rowland and D. O. Kazmer, Soc. of Plast. Eng.,
ANTEC Papers (1997).
15. D. Kazmer, J. Roland, and G. Sherbelis, J. of Inject. Mold-
ing Tech., 1, 1 (1997).
16. C. C. Wu, Z. Chen, and G. R. Tang, Computers in Indus-
try, 35 (1998).
17. K. K. Wang, CAE and Intelligent Processing of Polym.
Mat, ASME Proc., 79 (1997).
18. B. W. Cheng and S. Maghsoodloo, J. of Manuf. Syst., 14,
4 (1995).
19. A. E. Ames, G. Szonyi, and D. M. Hawkins, J. of Quality
Tech., 29, 3 (1997).
20. S. S. Rangwala and D. A. Dornfeld, IEEE Trans. on Sys-
tems, Man, and Cybern., 19, 2 (1989).
71