Process Optimization of Injection Molding
Using an Adaptive Surrogate Model With
Gaussian Process Approach
Jian Zhou, Lih-Sheng Turng
Polymer Engineering Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
This article presents an integrated, simulation-based
optimization procedure that can determine the optimal
process conditions for injection molding without user
intervention. The idea is to use a nonlinear statistical
regression technique and design of computer experi-
ments to establish an adaptive surrogate model with
short turn-around time and adequate accuracy for sub-
stituting time-consuming computer simulations during
system-level optimization. A special surrogate model
based on the Gaussian process (GP) approach, which
has not been employed previously for injection molding
optimization, is introduced. GP is capable of giving
both a prediction and an estimate of the confidence
(variance) for the prediction simultaneously, thus pro-
viding direction as to where additional training samples
could be added to improve the surrogate model. While
the surrogate model is being established, a hybrid
genetic algorithm is employed to evaluate the model to
search for the global optimal solutions in a concurrent
fashion. The examples presented in this article show
that the proposed adaptive optimization procedure
helps engineers determine the optimal process condi-
tions more efficiently and effectively. POLYM. ENG. SCI.,
47:684–694, 2007. ª 2007 Society of Plastics Engineers
INTRODUCTION
Injection molding, which is suitable for the mass pro-
duction of complex plastic parts with precise dimensions,
represents a major polymer processing method and
accounts for one-third of all plastics processed [1]. During
the injection molding process, many process conditions,
such as melt temperature, mold temperature, ram speed,
pack/hold pressure and duration, cooling time, etc., have
to be properly set to ensure the quality of the molded
components. At present, the various process conditions
are often selected by experienced engineers based on prior
experience, resin supplier’s recommendations, and/or ref-
Correspondence to: Lih-Sheng Turng; e-mail: turng@engr.wisc.edu
Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract grant num-
ber: DMI-0323509. Contract grant sponsor: 3M Precision Optics, Inc.
DOI 10.1002/pen.20741
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
V
C 2007 Society of Plastics Engineers
erence handbooks, and later adjusted and fine-tuned by
trial-and-error on the shop floor. This approach is highly
dependent on the experience of molding operators and
can be costly and time consuming, especially with a new
resin and/or new applications.
With advances in numerical modeling and computer
simulation techniques, there have been tremendous efforts
made to develop computer simulation tools to facilitate
injection molding design and process setups [2]. These
commercial and research tools are generally capable of
predicting the flow phenomena in a complex geometry,
thus helping engineers gain process insights, pinpoint
potential design problems, and make rational decisions
[3–5]. However, going through the vast amount of com-
puter-generated data manually to qualify the design and
process setups could become a daunting task, which
requires numerous iterations of CPU-intensive evaluation
of simulations and an understanding of the complex, non-
linear relationships among the design and process parame-
ters as well as objectives. All of these problems make it
difficult to effectively identify the optimal design and pro-
cess conditions for injection molding.
The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated
CAE optimization system that can intelligently, automati-
cally, and adaptively determine the optimal process condi-
tions for injection molding in a timely fashion without
user intervention. To facilitate the optimization process
for injection molding while avoiding an excessive number
of numerical iterations using computationally intensive
simulations, an alternative and more effective approach is
adopted in this study. The idea is to use Gaussian process
(GP), a nonlinear statistical regression technique, and
design of computer experiments to establish a surrogate
model that can substitute tedious simulations while using
minimum computational resources and intelligently select-
ing new sampling points in the design space, so that a
large amount of process (or design) alternatives can be
evaluated in a reasonable timeframe during a system-level
optimization process.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. The
second section presents the literature reviews for the opti-
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007
mization of injection molding including a discussion of
the current optimization procedures for injection molding
and the desired improvements. The third section proposes
a new adaptive optimization procedure based on the GP
surrogate modeling approach. A brief mathematical de-
scription of GP and a flowchart of the new optimization
procedure are introduced. A more thorough performance
analysis is documented in fourth section where the pro-
posed procedure is applied to the optimization of process
conditions in injection molding. Finally, the last section
gives the conclusions.
ANALYSES OF CURRENT OPTIMIZATION
PROCEDURES FOR INJECTION MOLDING
To date, quite a few researchers have developed and
employed different optimization schemes for selecting or
determining the optimal design and process parameters
for injection molding. These optimization schemes can be
classified into two categories. The first is using an optimi-
zation technique coupled with complete CAE simulation.
For instance, Park and Kwon developed a computer-aided
optimal design system to improve the performance of a
cooling system for injection molding by minimizing a
weighted combination of the uniformity of the part tem-
perature and the cooling time. They implemented the
CONMIN algorithm to obtain the optimal injection mold-
ing cooling system design with the special boundary inte-
gral formulation and the corresponding design sensitivity
analysis formulation, in which the constraints were dealt
with via the augmented Lagrangian multiplier (ALM)
method, and the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell method was
used for successive unconstrained optimization [6]. Deng
et al. applied the genetic algorithm (GA) to optimize
injection molding process conditions, such as melt tem-
perature, mold temperature, and injection time, with user-
definable objective functions. They also investigated the
effective GA attributes suitable for process conditions
optimization [7]. However, in these optimization strat-
egies, every objective function fitness value was evaluated
with a complete CAE simulation. Considering the large
number of objective functional evaluations during the
optimization process, these strategies have been regarded
as too time-consuming to be practically useful because of
the extensive runtime of simulations.
Considering the limitations of the first category, the
other approach employs modeling methods to establish a
surrogate model (also called metamodel) based on CAE
simulations, and thus substitute the simulations with the
surrogate model in the optimization procedure. In particu-
lar, Turng and Peic presented a CAE optimization tool
that couples a process optimization program (OPTIMUS)
with an injection molding simulation program (C-MOLD)
to determine the optimal design and process variables for
injection molding. In OPTIMUS, a polynomial type of
response surface methodology (RSM) is used to determine
and quantify the relationship between the design objec-
DOI 10.1002/pen
tives and the settings of design and process parameters.
They also evaluated and compared various local and
global optimization algorithms in terms of computational
efficiency and effectiveness for injection molding [8, 9].
Sadeghi developed a neural network model for predicting
the quality of injected molded parts based on important
process and material variables. This approach used a
backpropagation artificial neural network (ANN) that was
trained based on data taken from CAE simulation. The
system can greatly reduce the time required for optimiz-
ing process conditions [10]. Zhou and Turng proposed a
CAE optimization platform that can quickly determine the
optimal processing conditions for injection molding. This
approach uses support vector regression (SVR) to estab-
lish a surrogate model (or surrogate models in the case of
multiobjective optimization) to approximate the CPU-in-
tensive 3D simulations. GA is then implemented to evalu-
ate the surrogate model(s) for searching for the single or
multiple optimal solutions, respectively. In addition, the
performance and capabilities of using different modeling
approaches to establish the surrogate model, such as artifi-
cial neural networks (ANNs), polynomial regression (PR),
and SVR, were also investigated [11]. Castro et al. used
an approach composed of computer simulation, ANN, and
data envelopment analysis (DEA) to determine the proper
operating conditions for multiobjective optimization of
injection molding. They also discussed the identification
of robust efficient process and design settings for optimiz-
ing the injection molding process [12].
The above-mentioned surrogate model optimization
procedure can be summarized and illustrated in Fig. 1. In
particular, given the optimization objectives for injection
molding, the first step is to select a physical-based simula-
tion program, and then assume a regression model, such
as RSM, ANN, or SVR, etc., which hopefully is suited to
accurately represent the desired response. According to
the selected model, the sampling points are typically gen-
erated through a conventional design of experiments
(DOE). Considering the large number of DOE cases, the
analysis that needs to be executed could be computation-
ally expensive. Once all of the cases are analyzed, proper
parameter settings for the preliminary model are then
determined. To validate the resulting assumed model,
additional test cases need to be run to evaluate the predic-
tive performance of the model. On the basis of the error
observed with the validation data, a decision is made as
to whether the initially assumed regression model is
appropriate. If it is, then the acceptable surrogate model
can be employed by an optimization algorithm to search
for the optimal solutions. If, however, the evidence shows
that the model does not achieve the required predictive
performance, the proper way to improve the surrogate
model is to assume a new regression model and go
through the entire process again.
A critical assessment of the current surrogate model
optimization procedures reveals that there are four desired
main improvements:
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007 685
 FIG. 1. Current optimization procedure for injection molding using surrogate models.
1. From a statistical point of view, the present implemen-
tation for building the surrogate model is solely based
on pure data. Essentially, there is no guidance for
selecting the regression model. Since selecting a model
with little or minimal information brings an increased
risk of making inaccurate regression model selection,
it is desirable to eliminate the requirements of assum-
ing a regression model a priori.
2. Typically speaking, computer simulation is a kind of
‘numerical’ experiment. More representative training
data give the surrogate model better approximation ac-
curacy. As training samples grow, however, the effi-
ciency of sample data collection becomes very impor-
tant because of extensive simulation runtime require-
ments. While suitable for classical physical experiments,
conventional DOE may not perform well for highly
nonlinear regression models. Therefore, to generate
proper samples for building a robust surrogate model,
it is desirable to employ a special DOE scheme suita-
ble for computer simulation.
3. To verify the model selection, an additional randomly
generated validation sample set is needed to assess the
predictive performance of the surrogate model at the
end of model creation. If the current model fails to
yield sufficiently accurate representations, it needs to
be redefined, necessitating a repeat of the whole pro-
cess, and an increase in the number of DOE cases to
be executed. Thus, it is desirable to have an inherent
686 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007
estimate of the confidence of the model prediction
along with the prediction itself.
4. The current optimization scheme is normally executed
in a sequential fashion. The optimization algorithm can
be applied only after a surrogate model is generated
with satisfactory prediction ability. Therefore, an
adaptive surrogate model approach that allows concur-
rent execution of the surrogate model building and
optimization is desirable.
OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE WITH GP
SURROGATE MODELING APPROACH
In addressing the desired improvements to the current
optimization procedure pointed out previously, a novel
optimization system for injection molding using the GP
surrogate modeling approach was proposed and devel-
oped. It has the following characteristics: (1) It does not
require a specific model to be assumed a priori; (2) It uses
specific DOE for computer simulation, which can per-
fectly capture the general behaviors of injection molding
simulation with a relative small number of training sam-
ples; (3) It is capable of giving both a prediction and an
estimate of the confidence (variance) for the prediction
simultaneously, thus providing direction as to where addi-
tional training points could be added to improve the sur-
DOI 10.1002/pen

FIG. 2. Structure of the optimization procedure.
rogate model; (4) It enables a continuous adaptive process
in which the procedure will optimize the current version
of the surrogate model, adaptively update this surrogate
model whenever new data becomes available, and search
for the optimal solution with guidance.
GP for Regression
The GP method is a highly nonlinear regression tech-
nique based on the Bayesian probability and inference
approach. Taking into account prior information that is
available from the data, and assuming the associated error
to be normally distributed, the GP regression methods find
the most likely value as well as the variance for the
desired response directly through the statistical approach.
A GP regression model is concerned with evaluating
the probability P(tNþ1|D,xNþ1), where the new input vec-
tor is xNþ1 and the corresponding output is tNþ1. In this
FIG. 3. Training stage of the optimization procedure using LHS and GP.
DOI 10.1002/pen
process, the P(tN|CN,{xN}) is assumed to follow a Gaus-
sian distribution as given by:
1
PðtN j CN ; fxN gÞ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð2pÞN jCN j
 
1 T 1

exp  ðt  mÞ CN ðt  mÞ ð1Þ
2
where tN ¼ (t1(x1), t2(x2),. . ., tN (xN)), CN is the covari-
ance matrix for P(tN|{xN}), which composes of hyperpara-
meters needed to be optimized, and m is the mean which
will be zero for properly normalized data.
Once the GP model is trained, the optimal values of the
hyperparameters are then used to construct the covariance
matrix, which, in turn, is inverted and used to give predic-
tions for both the predicted response and the predicted var-
iance simultaneously through the following formulas:
tNþ1 ¼ kT C1
^ N tN (2)
s^2tNþ1 ¼ k  kT C1
N k (3)
where k ¼ (C(x1 xNþ1), C(x2 xNþ1),. . ., C(xN xNþ1)), and
k ¼ C(xNþ1, xNþ1). For the details of the GP method, the
reader is referred to Refs. 13–15.
Implementation of the Adaptive Surrogate Modeling
and Optimization Procedure
On the basis of the GP method, a novel adaptive opti-
mization system is implemented (cf. Fig. 2). The proce-
dure requires the user to specify the optimization criteria
in terms of an objective function and the constraints,
which can include any input variables for the computer
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007 687
 FIG. 4. Iteration stage of the optimization procedure.
simulation. This allows a variety of optimization objectives,
such as a shorter cycle time, temperature uniformity,
reduced residual stresses, minimal part shrinkage and warp-
age, or some combination thereof, depending on the user’s
requirements. In the meantime, various constraints, such as
clamp force, shot volume, or maximum injection speed and
pressure, can be specified [6]. It should be pointed out that,
due to the generic nature of this optimization scheme, any
of the commercial or research-oriented simulation programs
can be incorporated into this procedure.
In this proposed procedure, the Latin hypercube sam-
pling (LHS) method, which is a stratified random sam-
pling technique, is used for generating the samples needed
for initial training of the surrogate models. LHS allows
exceedingly sparse M point samples to be selected for an
688 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007
input design space with N dimensions. LHS is useful
when a simulation scheme needs a sample set that is ran-
dom but relatively uniformly distributed over each dimen-
sion [16, 17].
To perform the optimization, a novel two-step hybrid
optimization method that incorporates the GA with a local
optimization technique, the Hooke-Jeeve pattern search
algorithm, is employed to evaluate the surrogate model to
search for the global optimal solutions concurrently with
the GP surrogate model. The Hooke-Jeeve pattern search
algorithm is implemented to improve the convergence
performance [11, 18–20]. Because of an adaptive approxi-
mation of the optimization problem, by starting with a
coarsely approximated surrogate model, the hybrid GA
will proceed in the right direction to the near-optimal area
DOI 10.1002/pen
and approach the optimal solution with generations using
the successively updated surrogate model.
The new optimization procedure with the GP modeling
approach will intelligently identify the points with a large
variance in the design space and select those as the next
sampling points to adaptively update and improve the sur-
rogate model. The optimization procedure includes the
following two stages: the training stage (cf. Fig. 3) and
the iteration stage (cf. Fig. 4). Either the convergence of
the surrogate model or the convergence of the optimal so-
lution can be used as the termination criteria. FIG. 5. Setup of the threshold for the predicted variance.
Training Stage (cf. Fig. 3)
dation index, rmajor, and then set up a time variant ran-
dom major validation criterion, pmajor. If rmajor , pmajor,
1. Determine the inputs (process conditions)/outputs (objec- the corresponding samples will be selected to be eval-
tive values). uated with the simulation and will act as the additional
2. Perform the DOE for the computer simulation over the training samples to update the surrogate model. The
expected feasible design space. Each set of input pa- other samples in the temporary dataset will be moved
rameters generated by the LHS method will be ana- to the candidate sampling dataset (cf. Fig. 6).
lyzed by CAE simulation. d. Additional simulation will be run with the remaining
3. Execute simulation programs for all of the cases gener- samples from the candidate sampling dataset. This is
ated by LHS; collect the results and extract useful data done by allocating a random number between [0, 1]
for building the preliminary surrogate model. to each of the samples in the candidate sampling
4. Fit a GP surrogate model to the simulation results. dataset as the minor validation index rminor, and then
setting up a time variant random minor validation
The GP model generated from the current stage pro- criterion, pminor. If rminor < pminor, the corresponding
duces predictions for both the response and the variance samples are also added to the training dataset to
of the response simultaneously. This predicted variance improve the surrogate model (cf. Fig. 7).
could be used as an estimate of the accuracy of the pre- e. Perform the optimization on the current surrogate
diction and for validating and updating the preliminary model. The optimal sample will also act as the addi-
surrogate model. tional training sample and be used to improve the
surrogate model.
Iteration Stage (cf. Fig. 4) A major aspect of the new 3. Update the surrogate model with the new training samples.
modeling approach in this iteration stage is the inclusion 4. Evaluate the termination criteria. If the criteria are not
of a runtime surrogate model improvement capability met, repeat the process or stop after a predetermined
derived from the Bayesian nature of the GP. This is done number of iterations.
by using the following steps:
OPTIMIZATION APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS
1. Access the current surrogate model with the randomly ANALYSIS
generated samples within the design space.
2. Determine the data set to update the surrogate model:
a. Perform a feasibility check of the randomly gener- Process Conditions Optimization for an Optical Precision Lens
ated samples according to the constraints. If the In this example, the injection molding process of com-
sample is known to be infeasible, discard this one
plex optical precision lenses (cf. Fig. 8) is optimized
from the current dataset.
b. Setup a time variant random threshold. If the pre-
dicted variance of the sample is greater than the
threshold value, i.e., s2 > threshold, the correspond-
ing sample is extracted into a temporary dataset.
This temporary dataset contains the samples that,
once simulated, would greatly improve the surrogate
model. However, due to the large number of sam-
ples in the temporary dataset and the CPU-intensive
simulation, not all of the samples in this dataset are
simulated. Only a portion of the samples will be
selected as described in the next step. The other
samples with smaller variances are grouped into a
candidate sampling dataset (cf. Fig. 5).
c. Allocate a random number between [0, 1] to each of
the samples in that temporary dataset as the major vali- FIG. 6. Setup of the major validation percentage.

DOI 10.1002/pen POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007 689

 Minimize maximum volumetric shrinkage ð%Þ
Subject to 220 C  Tm  250 C
60 C  Tw  80 C
6 s  tinj  10 s
(4)
15 s  tpack  30 s
70%  ppack  100%
10 s  tcool  40 s
93%  V=P by volume  99%

The packing pressure values in percentages are speci-

FIG. 7. Setup of the minor validation percentage.
through the proposed GP optimization scheme. As shown
in the figure, the outside diameter of the lens part is
96.19 mm and the height of part at the center is 19.87
mm. The thickest part of the lens is at the outer rim of
the lens that is 10.50 mm, while the thickness at the cen-
ter of the part is 6.00 mm. The weight of the full shot
lens part is 69.8 g.
In this application, the maximum volume shrinkage is
minimized by optimizing seven independent process pa-
rameters, namely, melt temperature Tm, mold temperature
Tw, injection time tinj, packing pressure ppack, packing
time tpack, cooling time tcool, and the velocity/pressure
switch-over (V/P) by volume. The Moldflow software,
which can quickly provide volumetric shrinkage predic-
tion [21], is selected for simulation to obtain estimates
for the objective values. The output maximum volumet-
ric shrinkage as a function of the seven inputs is mod-
eled using GP. The material used in this application is
Rohm & Haas PMMA Plexiglass V-825. The optimi-
zation problem in this application is now defined as
follows:
fied in relation to the maximum capacity of the injection
pressure. The convergence of the optimal solutions (e <
0.0005) is used as the termination criteria.
To train the GP model, 15 process condition combina-
tions generated by the LHS technique are used initially
for building the surrogate models. The GP model is
trained using the covariance function shown below [15]:
" #
L ðxðlÞ  xðlÞ Þ2
1X i j
Cðxi ; xj Þ ¼ y1 exp  þ y2 (5)
2 l¼1 rl2
where the hyperparameters y ¼ (y1, y2, r) correspond to
the following: y1 controls the overall vertical scale of the
variance relative to the mean of the GP; y2 sets the bias
of the correlation as in an intercept; and r allows a differ-
ent distance measure for each input dimension. Perform-
ing the hybrid GA to maximize the logarithmic likelihood
estimation, the optimal values of the hyperparameters are
achieved and given in Table 1.
After the training stage, the preliminary surrogate
model will be adaptively updated and improved during
the iteration stage. Using the GP surrogate model, each
objective function evaluation takes less than 3 s on a Dual
2.66 GHz Xeon workstation. In the first iteration stage,
500 validation samples that could potentially be evaluated
by the GP model are randomly generated within the
design space, and the variance threshold is set as s2 >
0.5. Accordingly, 14 points among the 500 points are
qualified as the additional samples for updating the model
due to their large predicted variance, and each point is
given a random number as the index rmajor. After choos-
ing the major validation percent as pmajor ¼ 5%, 3 of the

TABLE 1. Optimal values for the hyperparameters.

y1 2.911
y2 3.786
r1 0.941
r2 0.992
r3 0.212
r4 0.238
r5 1.008
r6 0.742
r7 1.082
FIG. 8. Optical lens part molded with injection molding.

690 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007 DOI 10.1002/pen

 TABLE 2. Number of training samples, parameters, and the resulting objective values for each of the GP iteration step.

Iteration parameters Additional

Training (threshold variance, training samples Objective
samples pmajor, and pminor) (major/minor) values

Initial step 15 0.5, 5%, 0.5% 3/1 8.357

Step 1 20 0.1, 5%, 0.5% 3/1 8.255
Step 2 25 0.05, 2%, 0.2% 2/1 8.179
Step 3 29 0.01, 1%, 0.1% 1/1 8.134
Step 4 32 0.005, 1%, 0.1% 1/1 8.116
Step 5 35 — — 8.112

14 points are selected and will act as the additional train-
ing samples, while the remaining 497 points compose the
candidate sampling set, in which the minor validation per-
cent is set as pminor ¼ 0.5%. As a result, one point is
extracted from the candidate sampling set into the addi-
tional training set. At the same time, the hybrid GA is
used to evaluate this preliminary GP model to find the
current ‘optimal’ process condition, and this will also act
as the additional training sample. Thus, after the first-iter-
ation step, additional 5 simulations will be performed and
the corresponding data will be collected to improve the
overall predictive capability of the GP surrogate model.
Following the above procedure, after five iterations, the
iteration stage stops as the termination criterion is reached.
The GP model that satisfied the termination criterion is built
with overall 35 training samples. Table 2 shows the corre-
sponding model samples in each of the iteration step.
Table 3 tabulates the optimal process conditions
searched by the adaptive optimization scheme, and Fig. 9
shows the convergence processes using the hybrid GA to
evaluate the final surrogate model.
To verify the optimal process conditions, simulation is
performed using the optimal conditions. The maximum
volumetric shrinkage, obtained through simulation under
the optimized process conditions, is 8.119 (cf. Table 3).
The error between the predictions of the surrogate model
and the simulation is relative small (0.086%), which
confirms that the trained surrogate model can predict the
simulation results quite well. With the help of this auto-
mated and adaptive integrated optimization procedure, the
overall optimization task can be accomplished in hours
(7–8 h in this application) instead of days as required
by the conventional optimization approaches [11]. There-
fore, it shows that the trained GP model, as a substitution
for complete simulations, can achieve satisfactory predic-
tive capability with a reasonably small amount of compu-
tational resources.
Shrinkage and Warpage Optimization for a Box Part
In this application, the shrinkage and warpage (S&W)
of a polypropylene (PP) box part (cf. Fig. 10) in four
directions will be optimized with the proposed adaptive
procedure. The walls perpendicular to the x-direction are
1.3 mm thick and the walls perpendicular to the y-direc-
tion have four stepwise changes in thickness of 3.5, 3,
2.5, and 2 mm. The overall outside dimensions of the part
are 7.4 cm by 9.8 cm by 4.5 cm. Considering such a com-
plex part design with thickness difference in x and y
directions and variations in the y-direction and the semi-
crystalline PP resin, noticeable and statistically significant
S&W is produced over a wide range of process condi-
tions. The optimization results will be compared with
conventional injection molding experiment data to demon-
strate the capabilities of the optimization procedure. For
the details of the experiment setup, data, and result analy-
sis, the reader is referred to [22]. The objective function
in this application can be expressed as:
Minimize shrinkage & warpage S&W
ðj  xj þ j þ xj þ j  yj þ j þ yjÞ
¼
4
Subject to : 3 s  tpack  6 s
20 s  tcool  35 s (6)
40 mm=s  vinj  100 mm=s
40 MPa  ppack  60 MPa
205 C  Tm  230 C
20 C  Tw  40 C

TABLE 3. The optimal process conditions and objective values predicted by the surrogate model and simulation at the end of five iteration steps.

Process conditions Optimum solution

thold tcool tinj ppack Tmelt Tmold V/P Objective value Average error %

GP surrogate model þ hybrid GA 17.4 s 12.7 s 10 s 75.2% 221.48C 72.58C 94.5%

GP surrogate model þ hybrid GA 8.112 —
Moldflow simulation result 8.119 0.086%

DOI 10.1002/pen POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007 691


FIG. 9. The convergence processes of optimization using hybrid GA.
A commercial injection molding simulation program,
Moldex3D [23], is used in this application to evaluate the
objective functions. The validation of the simulation pro-
gram by comparing the numerical predictions of S&W for
the test box part with the experimental measurements can
be found in Ref. 11. After executing 32 (261) simula-
tions under the various process conditions that correspond
to the fractional factorial DOE molding trials, it is found
that the averaged overall error percentage between the
simulation and experiment results is 14.87%, suggesting
that the simulation results agree fairly well with the
experiment data. Therefore, it is adequate for performing
FIG. 10. Box part (polypropylene) molded with the injection molding process: (a) molded box part; (b)
CAD model of box part.
692 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007
the successive optimization studies based on CAE simula-
tions.
To establish the initial surrogate model, 40 sets of pro-
cess conditions are generated with the LHS technique. Af-
ter executing all of the simulations, the sample data are
extracted to establish the initial GP model, in which Eq. 5
is used as the covariance function. The convergence of
the surrogate model (e < 0.005, not the convergence of
the optimal solutions as used in the previous application
example) is used as the termination criteria. Following the
proposed procedure, after seven iterations, the termination
criterion is reached; and the GP model that satisfies the
termination criterion is built with 73 training samples
overall. Table 4 shows the corresponding GP model data
for each of the iteration steps.
This adaptive model is further validated over the previ-
ously mentioned 32 verification simulation results to esti-
mate the prediction accuracy. The model predicted S&W
values (in terms of distance deviated from the designed
straight walls) of the four directions are compared with
the simulation results of verification samples in Fig. 11.
In this figure, the solid line represents the best fit whereas
the dotted line corresponds to the unity slope (where the
model matches with the sampling points). Good agree-
ment is seen between the model predictions and the simu-
lation results (samples), which confirms that the predictive
ability of model construction is adequate. When achieving
the adaptive GP model, the hybrid GA is used to find the
optimal process conditions that can minimize the objec-
tive in Eq. 6. To evaluate the accuracy of those optimal
points, simulation is executed using those optimal condi-
tions. The simulation and optimization results generated
DOI 10.1002/pen
TABLE 4. Number of training samples, parameters, and the convergence from the GP model are compared in Table 5. Table 5 also
criteria for each of the GP iteration steps. lists the optimal process conditions obtained from experi-
Additional
mental regression for minimizing the S&W, as detailed in
Iteration parameters training Ref. 22. From the comparison, the average error percent-
Training (threshold variance, samples Convergence age between the results of the GP model and the simula-
samples pmajor, and pminor) (major/minor) criteria tion in all four directions is quite small (6.67%), which
suggests that the adaptive GP model can approximate the
Initial step 40 0.5, 5%, 0.5% 6/2 4.744
Step 1 48 0.1, 5%, 0.5% 3/2 2.261
simulation results well. Compared with the minimum
Step 2 53 0.05, 2%, 0.5% 3/2 1.237 S&W achieved from experimental regression, the optimal
Step 3 58 0.01, 1%, 0.2% 3/1 0.921 results from the GP model are much smaller. The reason
Step 4 62 0.01, 1%, 0.1% 4/0 0.797 is that using the surrogate modeling approach is more
Step 5 66 0.01, 1%, 0.1% 4/0 0.725 flexible in determining the optimal conditions than the
Step 6 70 0.01, 1%, 0.1% 3/0 0.679
Step 7 73 — — 0.674
conventional factorial DOE, as those optima need not to
be restricted to the fixed process condition setting levels
as used in the physical molding trials. Since the new

FIG. 11. S&W data (in mm) comparison between the adaptive GP model prediction and the 32 verification simula-
tion results (samples) in the x, þx, y, and þy directions. Solid line represents the best fit whereas the dotted line cor-
responds to the unity slope (where the model prediction matches with the simulation result). (a) S&W in x direction
[mm], (b) S&W in þx direction [mm], (c) S&W in y direction [mm], (d) S&W in þy direction [mm].
TABLE 5. The optimal process conditions and objective values predicted by the surrogate model, simulation, and experiment regression after seven
iteration steps.

Process conditions Optimum S&W

Objective Ave
thold tcool vinj ppack Tmelt Tmold |x| |þx| |y| |þy| value error %

GP surrogate
model þ hybrid GA 5.93 32.57 78.68 59.17 214.76 37.45 0.151 0.794 0.802 0.809 0.639 —
Experiment regression
optimum 1 6 20 — 60 — 40 0.322 0.918 0.836 0.823 0.727 —
Experiment regression
optimum 2 6 35 — 60 — 20 0.062 1.324 0.836 0.823 0.760 —
Experiment regression —
optimum 3 6 20 — 60 20 0.117 1.303 0.836 0.823 0.768 —
Moldex3D simulation result 0.176 0.859 0.828 0.825 0.672 6.67%

adaptive optimization system does not require complete
CAE simulation for every objective function evaluation
[7, 11], the overall design cycle time is greatly reduced.
This intelligent system can provide design space explora-
tion to ensure that the optimal solutions can be quickly
achieved that meets or exceeds all design requirements.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a novel optimization procedure based on
the GP surrogate modeling approach and DOE for com-
puter simulation are presented and shown to be theoreti-
cally sound and practically applicable to the optimization
of the injection molding process. Based on the Bayesian
probability and inference approach, the GP surrogate
model can provide predictions and estimations of the con-
fidence (in terms of variance) simultaneously. The new
optimization procedure does not need to assume a specific
regression model in advance; it can intelligently deter-
mine the optimization direction while adaptively selecting
the additional samples needed to improve the surrogate
model. On the basis of the results of the illustrative appli-
cation examples, the new procedure proposed here can
effectively establish the surrogate model with minimum
computational resources and adaptively search for the
optimal design and process conditions for injection mold-
ing within a reasonable timeframe.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Moldex3D and Moldflow for mak-
ing their simulation software available for this study.
REFERENCES
1. D.V. Rosato and M.G. Rosato, Injection Molding Handbook,
Chapman & Hall, New York (1995).
2. S.W. Kim and L.S. Turng, Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci.
Eng., 12, S151 (2004).
3. C.L. Tucker, Fundamentals of Computer Modeling for Poly-
mer Processing, Hanser, Munich (1989).
4. R.Y. Chang and W.H. Yang, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids,
37, 125 (2001).
5. F. Illinca and J.F. Hetu, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng, 53,
2003 (2002).
6. S.J. Park and T.H. Kwon, Polym. Eng. Sci., 38, 1450 (1998).
7. Y.M. Deng, Y.C. Lam, and G.A. Britton, Int. J. Prod. Res.,
42, 1365 (2004).
8. L.S. Turng and M. Peic, J. Proc. of the I MECH E, Part B,
J. Eng. M., 216, 1523 (2002).
9. M. Peic and L.S. Turng, SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers, 624
(2002).
10. B.H.M. Sadeghi, J. Mater. Process Tech., 103, 411 (2000).
11. J. Zhou and L.S. Turng, Int. Polym. Proc., 21, 509 (2006).
12. C. Castro, M.C. Rios, B. Lilly, and J.M. Castro. J. Polym.
Eng., 25, 176, 459 (2005).
13. M.N. Gibbs and D.J.C. MacKay, Efficient Implementation of
Gaussian Processes, University of Cambridge, England
(1997).
14. C.A.L. Bailer-Jones, A summary of Gaussian Processes,
Canvedish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, England.
15. D.J.C. Mackay, Introduction to Gaussian Processes, Univer-
sity of Cambridge, England (1998).
16. D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, Wiley,
New York (1991).
17. J.P.C. Kleijnen, S.M. Sanchez, T.W. Lucas, and T.M.
Cioppa, INFORMS J. Computing, 17, 263 (2005).
18. Y.G. Xu, G.R. Li, and Z.P. Wu, Appl. Artif. Intell., 15, 601
(2001).
19. R. Hooke and T.A. Jeeves, J ACM, 8, 212 (1961).
20. D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization,
and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, New York (1989).
21. Moldflow Corporation, Available at http://www.moldflow.com.
22. A. Kramschuster, R. Cavitt, D. Ermer, Z.B. Chen, and L.S.
Turng, Polym. Eng. Sci., 45, 1408 (2005).
23. CoreTech System Co., Ltd, Available at http://www.moldex3d.
com.

694 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—-2007 DOI 10.1002/pen