REVIEW

A Review of Current
Developments in Process
and Quality Control
for Injection Molding
ZHONGBAO CHEN, LIH-SHENG TURNG
Polymer Engineering Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Received: May 21, 2004
Accepted: March 3, 2005

ABSTRACT: Injection molding is one of the most versatile and important

manufacturing processes capable of mass-producing complicated plastic parts in
net shape with excellent dimensional tolerance. Injection molding process and
quality control has been an active research area for many years, as part quality and
yield requirements become more stringent. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art
research and development in injection molding control. It organizes prior studies
into four categories, namely, process setup, machine control, process control, and
quality control, and presents the distinction and connection of these different
levels of control. This paper further reviews and compares the typical variables,
models, and control methods that have been proposed and employed for those
control tasks. Strictly speaking, real online quality control without human
intervention has yet to be realized, primarily due to the lack of transducers for
online, real time quality response measurement, and a robust model that
correlates the control variables with quantitative quality measurements. Based on
the research progress to date, this paper suggests that the different levels of
control tasks have to be integrated into a multilevel quality control system, and

Correspondence to: Lih-Sheng Turng; e-mail: turng@engr.wisc.

edu.
Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation.
Contract grant number: EEC-0332696.

Advances in Polymer Technology, Vol. 24, No. 3, 165–182 (2005)

C 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
that the quality sensor and the process and quality model are the two most
important areas for further advancement in injection molding control.
C 2005
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym Techn 24: 165–182, 2005; Published online in
Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/adv.20046
KEY WORDS: Injection molding, Modeling, Plastics, Processing, Simulations
Introduction
A ccording to the Society of the Plastics Indus-
try (SPI), the plastics industry is the fourth
largest manufacturing industry in the United States,
accounting for approximately $321 billion in an-
nual shipments and more than 1.5 million direct
employees.1 Since 1976, plastics have been the most
widely used materials in the United States, surpass-
ing steel, copper, and aluminum in combined vol-
ume. Among all the polymer-processing methods,
injection molding accounts for more than 33% of all
polymeric materials processed, and is widely used
for mass producing discrete plastic parts of complex
shape cost-effectively with high precision.
During the injection molding process, various
polymeric material elements undergo different and
complicated thermomechanical histories and experi-
ence significant change in their rheological, mechan-
ical, and transport properties due to large pressure
variations and rapid cooling. Various factors regard-
ing the part and mold designs as well as the material
selection and process setup have to be considered
to ensure that the mold can be filled volumetri-
cally. The inherent, nonuniform material shrinkage
throughout the cavity due to cooling and crystal-
lization (in the case of semicrystalline materials)
is further affected by packing, mold cooling, con-
straints of mold geometry, and the possible pres-
ence of reinforcing fibers. As a result, the quality
of the injection-molded product is inherently diffi-
cult to predict and/or control without employing
sophisticated computer simulation software during
the design stage and/or frequent intervention by the
machine operator during the production stage. Nev-
ertheless, owing to growing plastics applications,
increasing customer demand, and rapid growth of
the global marketplace, the quality requirements of
injection-molded components have become more
stringent for various market sectors such as the
automotive, computer, consumer appliances, med-
ical, micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), op-
tical, and telecommunication industries. Nowadays,
166
part quality is crucial to the survival and success of
enterprises.
In practice, once an injection mold is built and
mounted on a machine, a molding engineer (or setup
person) has to set up the machine parameters based
on information from the material supplier, mold de-
signer, and, to a great extent, his or her own ex-
perience. Then the engineer has to go through an
extensive “mold trial” procedure, which entails pro-
ducing some parts and adjusting machine parame-
ters by trial and error until the molded parts meet the
design specifications consistently. Such an exercise is
not only time consuming and costly, but also has to be
repeated for each specific material/mold/machine
configuration.
Furthermore, even when the machine is properly
set up, periodic inspection of part quality is still nec-
essary as a measure of quality assurance. There is a
good possibility that the part quality may wander
outside the quality limits due to a number of un-
predictable reasons, which include variation in ma-
terial properties (particularly when reground resins
are used), change in the ambient environment (e.g.,
humidity or temperature in the shop), and machine
characteristics (particularly those using hydraulic
power). If that happens, the process conditions have
to be readjusted in order to bring the part quality
back within the tolerance limits.
To overcome the aforementioned difficulties and
to achieve and maintain first-class product quality
in injection molding, considerable research has been
conducted over the past two decades on suitable
process control systems with specific control tech-
nologies either online or off-line for the purpose of
automatic and adaptive quality control. Given the
numerous variables involved in the complex injec-
tion molding process, it is impossible to develop a
feasible control strategy without a thorough under-
standing of the relationship and dependency among
those variables. By examining closely all of the im-
portant variables involved, it was suggested that
they could be categorized into three distinctive lev-
els; namely, level 1—machine variables, level 2—
process variables, and level 3—quality variables, as
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
tabulated in Table I (after Wang et al.2,3 ). These vari-
ables have a direct impact on the final part quality
and process economics.
In particular, the variables at level 1 deal with ma-
chine operation and normally can be well and in-
dependently controlled with proper controllers and
sensors in the feedback loop. These variables are
called machine variables, and the control of these
variables is generally referred to as machine con-
trol. Nowadays, it is very common for modern ma-
chine manufactures to equip the machine with cer-
tain machine controllers such as the programmable
logic controller (PLC) and proportional, integral, and
derivative (PID) controller to facilitate the machine
control and operation.
The level 2 variables (process or dependent vari-
ables) depend on not only the process conditions (the
level 1 variables) but also the material, machine, and
mold configuration used. They reflect the character-
istics of the resin being processed and the machine
dynamics, among other process and design param-
eters. The control of these variables, which is com-
TABLE I
Three-Level Variables in Injection Molding2
Level 1—Machine variables (independently controllable)
Temperature
Barrel temperature (in several zones)
Nozzle temperature
Coolant temperature
Pressure
Pack/hold pressure
Back (recovery) pressure
Maximum injection pressure
Sequence and Motion
Clamp/fill/pack/hold/recovery/eject switchover point
Injection (ram) speed (constant or profiled)
Screw (rotation) speed
Shot volume and cushion (via screw displacement)
Level 2—Process (dependent) variables
Melt temperature (in the nozzle, runner,
or mold cavity)
Melt pressure (in the nozzle, cavity)
Melt-front advancement
Maximum shear stress
Rate of heat dissipation and cooling
Level 3—Quality definitions (final response)
Part weight and part thickness
Shrinkage and warpage
Sink marks
Appearance and strength at the weld lines
Other aesthetic defects: burn marks, gate blushes,
surface texture, etc.
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
monly referred to as process control, has been widely
studied and reported in various publications.
The level 3 variables, known as quality variables,
are a collection of various quality criteria. The control
of level 3 variables is the ultimate focus of the con-
trol system and of prime importance to the injection
molding operation. Depending on the applications
and functional requirements of the part, different
quality indices may be selected. Nevertheless, all of
the quality variables are the responses of levels 1 and
2 variables. As mentioned previously, the quality dy-
namics, which govern the relationship between ma-
chine and process variables and quality variables,
is not well understood at present. This in part con-
tributes to why quality control is lagging far behind
machine and process control.
The three categories of variables that describe the
hierarchy and dependency of injection-molding con-
trol fit in a multiple-level control system architecture,
as shown in Fig. 1. Specifically, the feedforward and
feedback loops at the three levels encompass and
enable the overall quality control. In the past, Gao
and Yang4 introduced a similar total control system
structure with three feedback loops. However, a sys-
tem that thoroughly implements online quality con-
trol has not been reported in the literature. Most of
the prior and current work deals with the control
tasks at the first two levels, usually by controlling
one or several important machine and process vari-
ables. For quality control, this is often achieved in-
directly through online dynamic process control or
off-line statistic process control (SPC).
There are two major challenges to the implemen-
tation of online, real-time quality control, as listed
below.
1. The complex quality dynamics in injection molding.
Insufficient quantitative information is avail-
able regarding the relationship among ma-
chine, process, and quality variables. Even for
the process level control in which the process
dynamics could be described by a set of gov-
erning equations, it still lacks degrees of free-
dom to manipulate the state of the polymer
melt through space and time.
2. The lack of online quality feedback information.
With existing technologies, direct and online
measurement of part quality within the cycle
time remains a challenging task for commercial
applications. In addition, some of the quality
criteria of a qualitative nature, such as aes-
thetic features, are difficult to measure quan-
titatively by regular instrumentation methods.
167
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
FIGURE 1. Multilevel control system architecture.2
Moreover, the diversity of quality requirements
across multiple molding applications is an-
other major barrier to achieving online quality
feedback.
This paper aims to review and summarize the cur-
rent research and developments in injection mold-
ing process and quality control so that interested
readers will be able to identify proper research areas
for further advancement, pinpoint a feasible path to
real, online quality control, and realize the dream of
“lights-out” production. In the following sections,
the machine setup methods will be presented first
since they are the starting point of control to deter-
mine the setpoint values (SVs) for the process, even
though the optimal SVs for level 1 and/or level 2
variables might not be constant in injection molding.
Then machine control is introduced, with empha-
sis on advanced control algorithms that need to be
implemented on microprocessors. Next two sections
are devoted to process control and quality control, re-
spectively. The paper concludes with suggested re-
search work to achieve the ultimate online quality
control.
Determination of Machine
Variables (Process Conditions)
The process conditions are the SVs of level 1 vari-
ables, as shown in Table I. The determination of pro-
cess conditions (such as shot size, injection speed,
pack/hold time and pressure, cooling time, back
168
pressure, coolant temperature, and barrel tempera-
ture) depends on the machine, mold, and material.
Typically, these parameters can be set at the ma-
chine’s operating console. The relationship between
process conditions and the final quality of molded
parts can be expressed as a mapping in the follow-
ing form:
Q(n, t) = f ( ps (t), n, t) + v(n, t) (1)
where Q is the collection of level 3 variables, which
include quantitative and qualitative variables such
as part weight, volume shrinkage, burn marks, sink
marks, etc.; n is the cycle number; t is the time from
the starting point of the cycle; ps (t) is the collection of
process conditions; v is the disturbances; and f is the
mapping function from process conditions to qual-
ity without considering the disturbances. Unfortu-
nately, f is typically very complicated or unknown
a priori, making the setup of process conditions a
difficult and cumbersome job.
In practice, the expression of f has to be simplified
to a certain extent in order to establish a reasonably
accurate mapping between process conditions and
part quality. For example, by ignoring the system
dynamics, the so-called optimal process conditions
can be obtained by solving a static optimum prob-
lem as is usually done. The methods of determin-
ing the process conditions can be categorized into
two approaches, depending on how Eq. (1) is inter-
preted; namely, the first-principle model approach
and the empirical model approach. The first ap-
proach involves the use of scientific-based computer-
aided engineering (CAE) software5,6 or mathemati-
cal models7 to assist the process setup. On the other
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
hand, the latter approach employs various empiri-
cal models such as numerical regression analysis,8
design of experiments (DOE),9 artificial neural net-
works (ANN),10 and expert systems.11 It is noted
that quality requirements may vary based on the
part’s function; therefore, one has to optimize a qual-
ity criterion subject to the constraint of Eq. (1), even
though it is sometimes not explicitly expressed. Dif-
ferent optimization algorithms have to be employed
in conjunction with the model presentation (either
first-principle based or empirical based) to obtain
the optimal processing conditions.12
MACHINE SETUP BASED ON THE
FIRST-PRINCIPLE MODEL
Most of the commercial CAE software pack-
ages (see, e.g., C-Mold5 and Moldflow6 ) for injec-
tion molding are generally based on rigorous, first-
principle models that provide reasonably accurate
descriptions and trends of the injection molding pro-
cess. Reliable CAE simulation tools could replace
the traditional ad hoc, trial-and-error approach and
help to set up the injection molding machine in a
more effective manner. Based on user-input infor-
mation, such as machine specifications, mold geome-
tries, and material properties, as well as certain built-
in criteria and rules, some special CAE software (see,
e.g., Moldflow Plastics XpertTM (MPX)13 and Dr. C-
Mold14 ) could suggest a set of feasible process condi-
tions to achieve acceptable parts. For example, one
CAE tool is capable of carrying out an automated
DOE to determine a robust process window for pro-
ducing “good parts.” More specifically, in the pro-
cess setup stage, several machine variables—namely,
shot size, injection velocity, injection pressure, injec-
tion time, and pack and hold pressures and times—
are first set step-by-step. The conditions can be fur-
ther refined in the process optimization stage using
the automated DOE to achieve 100% yield by im-
proving the process robustness and reducing the
probability of producing defective parts.15 Speight
et al.16 reported that this tool enabled the setup of
a new mold in 52 min and 88 cycles. In Nirkhe and
Barry,15 the software-based setup method was com-
pared with the manual approach and the results
showed that the former approach could obtain pro-
cess conditions that led to more consistent part
weights and dimensions than the latter manual
approach.
Turng et al.12 have integrated a CAE tool with
various optimization algorithms to help identify the
optimal process conditions to achieve a variety of
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
FIGURE 2. Structure and information flow of integrated
simulation and optimization system.12
optimization objectives while satisfying certain con-
strains. Figure 2 shows the information flow and
structure of the integrated simulation and optimiza-
tion system, which has been successfully applied in
the molding of precision optical lenses to minimize
the injection molding cycle time while reducing the
optical retardation of the lenses and the overall anal-
ysis time.
Besides setting up the conditions for injection,
packing/holding, and cooling, a simulation-based
optimization program was applied to establish
plastication conditions.17 Given the three distinc-
tive zones of plastication along the screw—solid
transportation, melting, and metering (melting
transportation)—a plastication simulator based on
the Tadmor–Klein model was combined with an
optimization algorithm to determine the rotation
speed, back pressure, and barrel temperature pro-
files. The results match the actual value with reason-
able accuracy.
Although CAE software can be an effective tool
for process settings, the underlying assumptions
and simplifications in those first-principle models
can sometimes lead to discrepancies between the
real optimal conditions and those obtained from
the CAE software. In addition to the commercially
available CAE software, some specific mathematical
models have been developed to provide instructions
for setting up process conditions. For example, Tan
169
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
and Yuen7 proposed an analytical model for injec-
tion molding, based on which the filling pressure,
clamp force, shear stress, shear rate, and tempera-
ture at different time instants and locations can be
calculated and used to determine suitable process
conditions.
MACHINE SETUP BASED ON THE
EMPIRICAL MODEL
Several types of empirical models have been
developed specifically for certain machine, mold,
and material combinations. The common techniques
for developing the empirical models include ANN,
case-based reasoning (CBA), DOE, expert system,
fuzzy logic, and numerical regression analysis.
Again, these empirical models are often combined
with optimization algorithms for determining the
optimal process conditions. Hence, the empirical
models sometimes are constructed in the reverse
form of f in Eq. (1), which take part quality and pro-
cess conditions as input and output, respectively.18
Amidst the diverse ways of building the compli-
cated empirical models, ANN is one of the widely
used methods.18–21 In this approach, some indices
of part quality, such as weight, thickness, warpage,
shrinkage, flash, and/or strength, are established as
the output of neural networks while the input are ei-
ther the machine variables (process conditions), such
as injection speed, injection pressure, holding pres-
sure, holding time, cooling temperature, and bar-
rel temperature, or the process variables, such as
nozzle pressure, cavity pressure, nozzle tempera-
ture, or a combination of them. It is not surpris-
ing that the results from those previous studies sug-
gested that networks based on process variables
could predict the part quality more accurately than
those based on machine variables. This is because
the process variables reflect more closely how the
polymer is being processed given the limitations
existing in the machine control system. Note that
the ANN model has to be trained with a set of
well-prepared data capable of describing the pro-
cess sufficiently accurately. Otherwise, the model
would have little use for process settings. Often,
DOE is employed to generate the required train-
ing experimental data over the feasible processing
range.
In Helps et al.,19 a numerical regression analysis
was performed to compare with the ANN approach.
The results showed that ANN could attain a more
accurate prediction than regression analysis. On the
170
other hand, regression analysis yielded a more con-
cise model, usually expressed in linear or quadratic
multivariable polynomials, which facilitated the op-
timization task.
Tan and Yuen22 proposed a fuzzy multiple-
objective approach to set up the process for mini-
mizing injection molding defects. In their study, the
defects were expressed by a scale number through
fuzzy functions. Additional data of quality defect
scales and process parameters were obtained
through DOE. The relationship between the sever-
ities of the defects and the machine variables was
approximated by a set of quadratic polynomials via
regression analysis. Accordingly, the optimal process
conditions could be obtained by minimizing injec-
tion molding defects.
As mentioned above, DOE has been used in con-
junction with other methods for generating mean-
ingful experimental data. Sometimes the data them-
selves can serve as a model, allowing DOE to
be applied directly to determine the process con-
ditions. For instance, Liao et al.23 started with
the process conditions suggested by a CAE tool
and then optimized them with DOE to minimize
the shrinkage and warpage of a cellular housing
part.
Mok and Kwong10 developed a CBA system com-
bined with fuzzy logic and neural networks for
determining the initial process conditions. In their
study, the model of the process was in the form
of a case library. The match of the current prob-
lem with the library was solved through fuzzy in-
ference, and the case adaptation was implemented
in neural networks. Their research presents another
type of empirical model of the injection molding
process.
By comparing the empirical-model methods with
those based on first-principle models, it can be noted
that first-principle models give more general instruc-
tions in less time. On the other hand, the empirical
models have to be built with time-consuming data
preparation from case to case; but they generally give
more accurate results.
The optimal processing conditions set by the
above-mentioned methods are assumed to exist and
remain constant for a specific combination of ma-
chine, mold, and material. However, this assump-
tion may not be true in a real process given various
unexpected disturbances. Therefore, it requires some
methodology to adjust the conditions from cycle to
cycle in order to compensate for the disturbances.
This will be discussed later in the quality control
section.
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL

where A is the coefficient matrix and B is the driving

Machine Control force matrix, both of which can be identified using a
multidimensional curve fitting algorithm. In Eq. (2),
X(t) represents the temperature state vector, u(t) is
Generally speaking, the injection molding ma-
the status of contactors, and F (t) is the load distur-
chine control (level 1) is relatively better developed
bances. Having obtained the general state equation,
compared to the process control (level 2) and qual-
numerous modern control algorithms, such as lin-
ity control (level 3). Nowadays, there are many
ear quadratic optimal control39 and model predic-
commercial control systems available in the mar-
tive control,40 can be applied to achieve better per-
ket for machine control (see, e.g., Pro Set 200/700,24
formance than PID.
MACO
R ,25 and Xtreem XP26 ). These systems usu-
Regarding injection velocity, there are many adap-
ally include function modules for controlling po-
tive control schemes reported in the publications,
sition/velocity, pressure, temperature, and mo-
such as the self-tuning regulator (STR) and general-
tion sequences. Well suited for injection molding
ized predictive control (GPC),34 sliding mode control
machine control, programmable logic controllers
(SMC),35 fuzzy logic control (FLC),36 and iterative
(PLCs) are widely used in these systems.27 Typi-
learning control (ILC).37,38 Technically speaking,
cally, a PLC sequence program or logic program
all of the above control schemes have a common
is created for controlling a motion sequence such
key component—the process model—whose accu-
as clamping close/open, ejection, injection unit for-
racy significantly affects the final performance, even
ward/backward, and safety guard. The injection ve-
though the proper controller design can partially
locity, ram position, screw rotation speed, hydraulic
compensate for a model mismatch. A general system
system pressure at injection and plastication, barrel
structure of adaptive control of injection velocity is
temperature, and coolant temperature can be con-
shown in Fig. 3.
trolled via a conventional PID embedded in the intel-
When using the linear model structure proposed
ligent modules. Recently, some up-to-date machine
by Wang et al.,41 Huang et al.42 presented a predic-
controllers were built upon industrial PCs (personal
tive control scheme and analyzed the closed-loop
computers) directly,25,26 which brings about numer-
properties. Furthermore, based on a linear AutoRe-
ous benefits, including more powerful processing ca-
gressive with eXogenous input (ARX) model, Yang
pabilities as well as more public and open resources
and Gao34 applied adaptive GPC to ram velocity
available to machine control developers.
control and compared it with a self-tuning pole-
It is well known that the performance of machine
placement controller enhanced by several measures:
control, which executes the commands set for mold-
antiwindup estimation to eliminate the estimation
ings, has direct impact on part quality. To achieve
windup, cycle-to-cycle adaptation to improve the
consistent quality, the controller should be able to
model convergence, and adaptive feedforward and
repeat the process conditions consistently with high
profile shift to improve the tracking speed. They con-
accuracy. However, there are plenty of unpredictable
cluded that the adaptive GPC controller performed
disturbances, including those coming from polymer
well over a wide range of process conditions. Fur-
pellets and melt, which are very difficult to model
thermore, the GPC design has inherently good track-
and predict. As a result, traditional PID control some-
ing performance and excellent tolerance to model
times cannot guarantee high standard machine per-
mismatch.
formance. Therefore, there have been continuous ef-
As far as the nonlinear model based on physical
forts in pursuing advanced control technologies to
principles is concerned,43 it is very difficult to de-
improve machine control.28–38
sign a controller directly from the model due to its
Since the barrel temperature, injection speed, ram
complexity. However, the nonlinear model can be ap-
position, and hydraulic pressure are closely related
proximated by a simpler model structure, which is
to the injection stage, some advanced strategies have
suitable for the control while the error resulting from
been developed to control these parameters.32 In par-
the approximation can be taken into account in de-
ticular, Bulgrin and Richards28 proposed a barrel
sign. For example, Tan et al.35 developed an adaptive
temperature state control based on a state equation
sliding mode controller, which was verified through
in the form of Eq. (2) obtained from a lumped heat
simulation to be capable of achieving tight setpoint
capacity analysis
regulation.
There are also some unconventional ways to rep-
X (t) = A · X(t) + B · u(t) + F (t) (2) resent the process models. For example, Tsoi and

ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY 171

INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
FIGURE 3. Structure of an adaptive injection velocity control system.34
Gao36 used a fuzzy logic-based model to develop an
FLC for injection velocity. Their experimental results
revealed that the fuzzy logic controller worked well
with different molds, materials, barrel temperatures,
and injection velocity profiles, suggesting that the
fuzzy logic controller has superior performance over
the conventional PID controller in response speed,
setpoint tracking, noise rejection, and robustness.
Because of the cyclical nature of injection mold-
ing, it is well suited for a learning control strategy;
namely, ILC, which uses successive repetitions of the
same action to refine the control input. ILC has been
employed to control injection velocity by Gao et al.,37
and to control hydraulic pressure/ram position by
Havlicsek and Alleyne,32 where the traditional open-
loop feedforward compensator was combined with
feedback optimization control to achieve stable con-
vergence and performance improvement akin to
closed-loop control. The control law of ILC can be
expressed in the following form:
Feedback
 

term
uk (t) = G c (s) · e k (t) + wk (t) t ∈ [to (k), to (k) + T]


 

 
Present
interation
Controller
transfer
Present
iteration
Present
iteration
input function input feedforward
term
(3)
where the present iteration feedforward term is
learned from shot to shot. Both simulation and ex-
perimental results showed that the tracking error of
injection speed or ram position decreased apprecia-
bly within the first few learning iterations.
In addition to the control of machine variables,
there is a unique sequence control in injection mold-
172
ing, which is the switchover point from the injection
phase to the pack/hold phase. Typical signals used
for determining the switchover point include ma-
chine variables such as time, ram position, and/or
hydraulic pressure, as well as process variables such
as nozzle pressure and cavity pressure. Chang44
compared the process capability of five switchover
modes where part quality of weight and dimension
were concerned. The research concluded that the de-
sirable modes for switchover should be based on, in
descending order, cavity pressure, hydraulic pres-
sure, stroke, time, and speed. A similar sequence was
also suggested in other independent works (see, e.g.,
Sheth et al.45 ). Due to the abrupt changes that occur at
the moment of switchover, large disturbances could
be introduced into the system. Zheng and Alleyne46
developed a comprehensive model representing an
injection molding machine with fill-to-pack dynam-
ics and proposed a bumpless transfer in order to
achieve a smooth transition from filling to packing.
Since the nonlinear and time-varying characteris-
tics are inherent in the injection molding machine,
advanced adaptive process control technologies are
capable of reaching higher standard performance
than conventional PID if the machine dynamics are
well modeled. However, it seems that industries are
still reluctant to utilize advanced control technolo-
gies in their machine controllers, which are still dom-
inated by PID. The reasons for their choice lie in
the fact that advanced control schemes rely highly
on underlying machine dynamic models. Both its
structure and coefficient parameters need to be care-
fully validated before being implemented into the
closed-loop control to ensure reliable performance.
The modeling work has to be carried out by control
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
engineering experts for different machines, which is
very costly and time consuming. On the other hand,
traditional PID possesses the advantages of simple
structure and easy tuning, with no special assump-
tions on the machine dynamics even though its per-
formance is moderate.
Therefore, it would be highly beneficial for the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of machine
controllers if high performance could be achieved via
either advanced model-based controls with the aid of
automated procedures for modeling and validation,
or new control strategies with fewer, more general
and realistic assumptions on the machine dynamics.
Process Control
As indicated previously, the process (level 2) vari-
ables are more closely related to quality (level 3)
variables than are the machine (level 1) variables.19
Therefore, it is rational to control the process vari-
ables rather than the machine variables in order
to achieve desirable and consistent part quality. As
early as the late 1980s, Agrawal et al. 47 suggested us-
ing “plastic variables,” which are referred to as pro-
cess variables here, as controlled parameters since
plastic variables are the true indicators of the condi-
tion of the plastic inside the mold. The validity of the
suggestion has been proven in numerous research
efforts which show that the polymer melt temper-
ature and pressure have a very strong influence on
the quality of the molded part. The characteristics
of cavity pressure throughout all phases of injection
molding play an especially dominant role concern-
ing the part quality, which can be characterized by
part weight, thickness, or other dimensional features
like shrinkage and warpage.48–50
In addition to cavity pressure, other process vari-
ables, such as nozzle pressure, melt temperature,
melt viscosity, and mold separation, are widely em-
ployed in injection molding process control. These
process variables are dependent upon the collective
effect of the machine setting, the specific resin and
mold used, and the nonlinear, distributed, and time-
varying process dynamics. In order to control the
process variables to follow their desired profiles, one
can manipulate a set of machine parameters to form
a multivariable control system taking into account
the complex process dynamics.51 Alternatively, there
is another option that is much simpler in the sense
that only one machine parameter, such as hydraulic
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
pressure or valve opening, is selected as the ma-
nipulated variable, and the disturbances from the
environments or other parameters are compensated
through adjusting the hydraulic pressure or valve
opening.52–54
As shown in the multilevel system structure in
Fig. 1, the process variables serve as the connection
between the machine setting and the final part qual-
ity response. However, no generic quantitative mod-
els have been established for the connections from
the machine setting to the process variables and from
the process variables to the quality response. The re-
lationship between process variables and quality in-
dices is modeled as quality dynamics, which should
be thoroughly analyzed when setting up the ref-
erence profiles for the controlled variables; while
the relationship between machine parameters and
process variables is governed by process dynamics,
which should be carefully studied in designing and
developing the process controller. Many efforts have
been made in modeling the process dynamics, rang-
ing from physical models,43,53,55 ANN models,56,57
to hybrid models.58 Based on the resulting process
models, different control algorithms have been de-
veloped to control process variables. Due to the com-
plexity of the process dynamics mentioned above,
conventional time-invariant controllers such as PID
are not good enough to achieve a satisfying perfor-
mance, and advanced process control algorithms,
such as adaptive control, generalized predictive con-
trol (GPC), and intelligent control, have to be devel-
oped (see below).
CAVITY PRESSURE CONTROL
Due to its widely recognized importance, there
has been much research on cavity pressure control.
Gao et al.52 analyzed cavity pressure dynamics in the
filling and packing/holding stages and designed a
self-tuning regulator (STR) to control the cavity pres-
sure so that it follows a preset profile through ma-
nipulation of the servo-valve opening. In their study,
the dynamics of cavity pressure was found to be both
nonlinear and time varying in relation to the servo-
valve opening. It was modeled as a simple integrat-
ing process with a time-varying gain, which was in
parallel with a first-order process with a varying pro-
cess gain and time constant and in series with a pure
delay. This cavity pressure model is shown in Eq. (4)
 
k1 (t) k2 (t)
y(s) = + e −td s u(s) (4)
s τs + 1
173
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL

where y is the cavity pressure, u is the servo-valve

opening, k1 (t) is the gain for the integrating process,
k2 (t) is the gain for the first-order process,
is the
process time constant, td is the time delay, and s is
the Laplace transfer operator. Under the same model
structure, the ARX model translated from Eq. (4) was
identified online using the recursive least-squares
algorithm with forgetting factor for the filling and
packing/holding phases, respectively. Based on the
identified model parameters, it calculated the coeffi-
cients of STR, which controlled the cavity pressure to
follow a constant ramp reference in filling and a first-
order system response profile in packing/holding.
The experimental results showed that the methods
worked very well under a wide range of process con-
FIGURE 4. Cavity pressure responses to 40% and 70%
ditions.
servo-valve opening.59
Further, the cavity pressure in the cooling stage
was controlled by a cascaded system. The feature of
the cavity pressure profile was represented by the gically selected data points along the whole cavity
time interval, defined as controlled pressure cool- pressure profile. The BPN was treated as an intelli-
ing time (CPCT), when the pressure dropped from gent controller that would give the command to ma-
67–33% of its initial value. The coolant temperature chine controllers when a difference between the cur-
was employed to adjust the CPCT in a cycle-to-cycle rent cavity pressure profile and the desired one was
mode, and the supply water valve was used to con- detected, which corresponded to a certain quality
trol the coolant temperature continuously.54 With requirement.
cavity pressure control throughout the whole cycle, Similar to the above-mentioned method, Kistler’s
the part weight variation was found to be within Autoflow program also tried to duplicate a desired,
0.05%. user-specified cavity pressure profile by employing
Besides adaptive STR, model predictive control ANN. The ANN was trained to relate cavity pres-
(MPC) has also been investigated in controlling the sure with four major process parameters: injection
cavity pressure during the filling stage due to its speed, holding pressure, holding time, and mold
robustness in continuous industrial process.59 The temperature.57 By systematically adjusting these pa-
dynamics from servo-valve opening to cavity pres- rameters, the desired cavity pressure profile can be
sure during mold filling was represented by the non- quickly replicated. Further, Kazmer and Barkan62 in-
parametric model of step response of cavity pressure vestigated the strategy of simultaneously controlling
shown in Fig. 4, where the response corresponding to pressure profiles in multiple cavity points through
40% valve opening was selected as a model for con- the addition of dynamic valves in the melt delivery
troller design. The prediction horizon was chosen to system. The proposed method provides significant
be 700 ms, resulting in 140 sampling intervals. The process flexibility and increases the process capabil-
response showed both nonlinear and time-varying ity index.
features, which could be overcome to some extent Since the cavity pressure is very important in con-
by the rolling optimization and long-range predic- necting the machine setting to the final part quality,
tion of the predictive control algorithm.
Considering the nonlinear and time-varying dy-
namics of cavity pressure, ANN has been used to de-
scribe the relationship between cavity pressure and
certain machine parameters. Woll and Cooper60,61
proposed a cascade control scheme, as shown in
Fig. 5, where a back propagation network (BPN)
was trained by using data generated from the phys-
ical model that represented the inverse dynamics
from the holding pressure level and barrel temper- FIGURE 5. Block diagram of the pattern-based
ature to cavity pressure patterns based on strate- cascade control strategy.60

174 VOL. 24, NO. 3

 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
being able to predict the cavity pressure accurately
based on generic physical models like those imple-
mented in CAE software is greatly desired. How-
ever, there are always some discrepancies between
the experimental data and the predictions, which re-
sult not only from the inherent disturbances in the
physical system but from omission or simplification
of some important material properties, such as the
pressure-dependent viscosity, transient heat transfer
coefficient at the plastic–mold interface, viscoelastic-
ity, and other variable material properties.63 There-
fore, improving the accuracy of material models will
help to predict process variables more accurately,
thereby improving the dynamic control of these pro-
cess variables.
NOZZLE PRESSURE CONTROL
When installing the cavity pressure transducers
inside the mold is not feasible, as encountered in
many production molds, nozzle pressure is usually
taken as an alternative because it provides the melt
information close to the mold cavity. Moreover, the
pressure transducer is installed in the injection noz-
zle and therefore can be used for different molds
without additional tooling. As with controlling cav-
ity pressure, a process dynamic model correlating
nozzle pressure with machine parameters is essen-
tial to the design and implementation of an online
control system. Due to the lack of a generic phys-
ical model and the wide variation of machine and
process dynamics, different types of empirical mod-
els have been developed for various specific appli-
cations. Petrova and Kazmer58 developed a hybrid
neural network that combined the training of neu-
ral networks with the analytical knowledge of the
molding process to predict the injection pressure at
the nozzle as a function of shot size, injection veloc-
ity, and melt temperature. The prediction capability
of the hybrid network was compared with conven-
tional networks trained using the experimental data
and simulated data, respectively. The results showed
that hybrid networks outperformed the others, espe-
cially when the number of training data points was
limited. This research provides a prospective method
to start the process control quickly from the process
physical model and then refine the model gradually
when enough online process data become available.
Yang and Gao64 applied an ARX model to describe
the nonlinear and time-varying dynamics between
the servo-valve opening and melt pressure in the
nozzle. Following an idea similar to that of cavity
pressure control methods in Gao et al.,50 they devel-
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
oped an STR based on pole placement, which was
calculated using the process parameters identified
online to control the nozzle pressure at the pack-
ing stage. It is noted that a forgetting factor was
used in the RLS identification algorithm to overcome
time-varying and nonlinear features. Furthermore,
the control performance was improved through em-
ployment of an antiwindup estimation, an adaptive
feedforward, and cycle-to-cycle adaptation.
Since the purpose of nozzle pressure control is to
stabilize the process and produce high-quality parts,
the reference signal for the nozzle pressure controller
is usually determined by the quality requirement. In
addition, nozzle pressure combined with the melt
temperature in the nozzle can also be interpreted
as an indication that reflects process variations. In
Orzechowski et al.,65 it is reported that the nozzle
pressure peak value and its integration verses time
can be utilized to monitor the process and detect such
abnormal situations as throat starvation, cold slug in
the nozzle, and a variation of material properties.
MELT TEMPERATURE CONTROL
Melt temperature is another fundamental process
variable whose dynamic models and control meth-
ods had not been discussed in detail until the late
1980s. As reported in Agrawal et al.,47 intelligent
computation-based methods were used to model the
temperature process dynamics, and advanced con-
trol strategies based on a relatively large amount of
online calculation were implemented to achieve per-
formance superior to conventional PID controllers.
Due to its capability to mimic the behaviors of
complex systems, ANN has been employed in mod-
eling the melt temperature. Zhao and Gao66 com-
bined ANN with a physical model based simulation
to predict the melt temperature profile in the noz-
zle chamber. The melt development process was di-
vided into plastication, dwell, and injection stages. In
the plastication stage, an ANN was employed to pre-
dict the effect of operating conditions, including noz-
zle heater, barrel heaters, screw rotation speed, back
pressure, and charge stroke, on the melt temperature
profile. Subsequently, a physical model based simu-
lation was applied to generate the temperature de-
velopment during the dwelling and injection stages.
The prediction of the proposed method matched the
experimental measurements very well. The work of
modeling could be further used in the implemen-
tation of optimization and advanced control. ANN
was also used by Richard et al.67 to predict the cavity
melt temperature based on the data obtained from
175
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
the measurement of a thermocouple embedded in-
side an ejector pin. The ANN model was found to
predict the real melt temperature history very well.
As to the method for melt temperature con-
trol, several researchers have employed the GPC
algorithm,68–70 which originated from continuous
industrial process control. The melt temperature in
the nozzle is one of the few variables in the cyclic in-
jection molding process that can be monitored and
controlled continuously, while the cyclic movement
of the ram and screw could be treated as periodic
disturbances. In Dubay et al.,68,70 the heater power of
different heating bands was used to control the melt
temperature in the corresponding zone for insulated
and uninsulated machines through GPC during the
machine start-up period. The performance of decou-
pling among several zones, temperature overshot,
and dynamic transient time were the main concerns
in the study. Furthermore, the online adaptive tun-
ing of GPC controller parameters was investigated
based on the performance.69
MOLD SEPARATION CONTROL
Mold separation is not a process variable directly
associated with the polymer melt; rather, it depends
on the integration of melt pressure versus the project
area in the sprue, runner, and cavity. Moreover, the
mold separation can be measured outside of the cav-
ity, which is more favorable than installing pressure
transducers inside of the mold. It was found in the
early research that mold separation, which is on the
order of microns at the moment when the mold cav-
ity is volumetrically filled, was a reliable indictor of
part weight or thickness.47,71–73
Buja71 and Wenskus et al.72,73 studied the applica-
tion of mold separation control to improve the con-
sistence of part weight. In their work, a mold sep-
aration signal was directly used to determine the
switchover point from filling to packing, replacing
the traditional switchover criterion based on ram po-
sition or hydraulic pressure. In addition, the thresh-
old value for switchover was adaptively adjusted
from cycle to cycle. With mold separation monitor-
ing and control, consistency of part weight was im-
proved.
Recently, Wang et al.2 developed an integrated
adaptive injection molding control system, in which
mold separation was measured online by a linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT) mounted
along the parting line outside the mold. The
system automatically determined the fill-to-pack
switchover point and continued to control the mold
176
separation profile by manipulating the hydraulic
pressure in the postfilling stage. Such control over-
rode the initial settings of switchover point and
packing pressure. Therefore, both cycle-to-cycle and
within-cycle adaptive control could be used to com-
pensate for both long-term and short-term distur-
bances. The reported experimental results showed
that the standard deviation of part weight in 200
consecutive shots could be improved by around one
order of magnitude.
There is no doubt that properly selected process
variable control is very helpful in improving the pro-
cess capability, increasing the part quality, and re-
ducing the production cost. There are two conditions
that have to be satisfied for the process variables to be
qualified for online control. First, the signal should
be measurable online via commercially available
transducers. Second, the measured variable should
be closely related to the process and the properties
of molded parts. It is based on these criteria that the
cavity pressure and mold separation are preferred
over other variables for process control. However, all
variables have their own strengths and weaknesses.
For example, the directly flash-mounted transduc-
ers inside the cavity may not be allowed where the
surface finish is critical. In this case, there are several
methods to overcome the difficulties, namely, using
upstream information in the nozzle or a downstream
signal such as mold separation outside of the cavity.
It is noted that there is extensive research about
applying innovative sensors to measure the process
in a nondestructive way through the development
of associated hardware and software. In addition to
mold separation detected by LVDT, the tie bar exten-
sion (an alternative measurement for mold separa-
tion) can be measured via a strain gauge.74 A study
has shown that the deformation of a tie bar measured
by a pretensioned piezo element was highly corre-
lated with the cavity pressure.75 Compared to mold
separation, these measurements contain more use-
ful information in the sense that they are detectable
during the whole injection cycle. In contrast, mold
separation may not be detectable except at the mo-
ment when the mold is filled, and it requires certain
cavity geometry (with a large project area) to pro-
duce measurable separation with proper resolution.
Ultrasonic sensing is another widely studied tech-
nology for measuring variables in the injection mold-
ing process.76–80 It was reported that ultrasonic sen-
sors had been employed to investigate a wide range
of process characteristics such as the melting behav-
ior of the resin in the injection barrel, temperature
and pressure variation in the nozzle, melt-front flow
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
inside the cavity, cavity pressure, solidification be-
havior in the cavity, polymer orientation, and some
quality responses such as part dimension.
It is anticipated that the development of the
new sensing technology will benefit the online pro-
cess control by providing more reliable information
about the process, thus providing opportunities for
advanced control to be applied in injection molding
process control.
Quality Control
Quality control is the final goal of machine control
and process control. It takes the quality requirement
from the design or process engineers and connects
the previous two levels of controllers by feeding the
output to them as reference inputs. Compared to
the process setup stage, where the process condi-
tions are sought through static optimization as dis-
cussed in section Machine Control, quality control
also requires a certain form of quality model that
relates the desired quality response to process vari-
ables and/or machine variables. Here, the process
conditions or process variables have to be changed
from cycle to cycle to compensate for the possible
disturbances coming from the material, machine dy-
namics, and/or process dynamics. In general, the
goal of quality control is to achieve the desired part
quality by adjusting the lower level parameters.
As pointed out before, online quality response
measurement in injection molding is difficult to im-
plement using commercially available sensors at a
reasonable cost, which precludes direct online feed-
back for quality control, at least on the production
floor. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no so-called
closed-loop quality control for injection molding,
and all of the implementation strategies dealing with
quality control fall into an observer-based control
system structure, as shown in Fig. 6. The quality
FIGURE 6. Observer-based quality control system
structure.
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
models, which act as the observers in the control
system, are usually implemented offline using such
methods as neural network training or data regres-
sion analysis. How well the system can regulate and
achieve the predefined quality index will largely de-
pend on the accuracy and the capability of adap-
tation to time-varying characteristics. The perfor-
mance of the quality models further relies on the
modeling methods and the measurable variables.
Numerous researchers have investigated possi-
ble methods to construct a generic, reliable, accu-
rate, and economical quality observer for process
and quality control. Similar to the approaches used
to determine the process settings, the quality ob-
servers range from different kinds of empirical mod-
els to first-principle-based models, or a combination
of them. As to the quality index, part weight and
part dimensions are the two most widely selected
variables to represent the quality because they can
be quantitatively measured with high resolution.81
Woll and Cooper61 compared different empiri-
cal models—namely, the linear regression model,
SPC model, and BPN model—to predict part weight
and length. They concluded that the neural network
model trained using the cavity pressure profile gave
the best prediction. ANN was also employed by
Rewal and Toncich82 to predict the part weight from
the melt pressure and temperature in the nozzle.
The calculated part weight fits the experimental data
very well.
Besides the quality model or quality observer, it
is noted that the quality controller is a key element
in the quality control loop as well. The previously
built models provide a direct way to develop the
controller, which ideally is the inverse of the quality
model. However, there are many other methods to
handle the design of the quality controller in practice.
Ricketson and Wang83 constructed an empiri-
cal model of part thickness as a function of pack-
ing/holding pressure, mold temperature, and barrel
temperature via curve fitting experimental data from
a factorial design of experiments using the following
form:

n
Y = a0 + a i xi (5)
i=1
where Y is the controlled quality index (e.g., part
thickness) and xi is the process parameter. Then a
thickness regulator was implemented so that pack-
ing/holding pressure could be calculated based on
the desired part thickness and measured tempera-
tures at the beginning of the injection cycle. If the
177
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
manually measured thickness was outside of the tol-
erance band, the data were used to update the model
and the whole procedure was repeated. This is a typ-
ical implementation of quality control based on the
empirical regression model. If nonlinear regression
models are used, an optimization program is needed
to search for the optimal solution.
Nevertheless, when the quality observer is ex-
pressed in more complicated forms, such as ANN,
the direct inverse is not easy to obtain; therefore, the
controller should be designed with the help of con-
trol theory. Liang and Wang84,85 proposed an inverse
neural optimal control system (INOCS) consisting of
a closed-loop controller, a quality predictor based on
neural networks, and an optimization calculator of
a performance index with a multiloss function. It is
noted that the controller was also implemented in the
form of a neural network whose structure is shown
in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7, L(t + 1) is the expected loss in cycle
t + 1; L(t) is the lost value of the current shot; and Ft,
Pt, and Pp are the filling time, packing/holding time,
and pressure, respectively. It is reasonable to expect
that the current control action will generate the lost
value of L(t + 1) for the next cycle. If the quality pre-
dictor and inverse model are accurate enough, the
calculated loss should decrease exponentially, ensur-
ing that the optimal part quality is achieved.
In addition to ANN, other forms of artificial in-
telligence (AI) technology were also investigated in
pursuing quality control of injection-molded parts.
Vagelatos et al.86 integrated the quality observer and
controller into a fuzzy-logic-based controller, which
contained rules obtained from machine operator ex-
perts in the following form:
IF defect(i) is A(i) THEN the increase (decrease)
of parameter( j) must be B( j)
FIGURE 7. Inverse neural optimal controller.84
178
In this implementation, the controller acts as an au-
tomatic troubleshooting system to reduce the chance
of producing parts with severe defects.
Even though the AI-based quality control can han-
dle specific problems very well, it is well known
that the model development and validation need
a lot of experimental data, which is time consum-
ing and costly. Furthermore, the developed model is
susceptible to external disturbances even though it
can capture highly nonlinear and complex dynam-
ics. Therefore, it is desirable to find a more generic
and science-based description of the quality dynam-
ics, from which the rigorous multiple objective op-
timization procedure can be developed for online
quality control.87
Kamal et al.88 converted a part weight control to
process variable control through the simple relation-
ship between part weight, pressure, and tempera-
ture, as shown below
Vc
W= (6)
v(Pp , Tb∗ )
where W is the part weight, Vc is the cavity volume,
v(Pp , Tb∗ ) is the average specific volume evaluated
at the time when the gate freezes off, and Pp and Tb∗
are the cavity pressure and bulk temperature, respec-
tively. What remains is how to control or compensate
for the deviation of cavity pressure and temperature
away from the reference values.
Equation (6) gives a generic relationship between
part weight and the pvT properties of materials.
There are several quality control studies based on
material properties combined with first-principle
models to control part weight or dimensions.89–91
Wang and Wang89 proposed a thickness control
scheme that employed an online, one-dimensional
simulation program, which corresponded to the
quality observer in Fig. 6. The output of the observer
(i.e., the calculated part thickness) was compared to
the manually measured value, and a linear regres-
sion was employed to compensate for the model
mismatch. In another study, Wang and Lin92 avoided
online simulation. The quality information provided
by the CAE program was extracted through DOE,
and an ANN was trained based on the simulation
results. Then fuzzy logic rules similar to those used
in Vagelatos et al.86 were used to search for the pro-
cess parameters from shot to shot in order to achieve
the desired part quality.
Sheth and Nunn91,93 also employed the material’s
pvT properties to develop an adaptive online weight
control system that detected the melt temperature
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
variation through the change of filling pressure and
packing pressure. Then the required change in the
holding time and holding pressure level to compen-
sate for the change in melt temperature was calcu-
lated based on mathematical equations. The exper-
imental results showed that part weight variation
caused by the change in melt temperature could be
reduced.
In the aforementioned quality control methods,
the quality observers are usually predetermined
through off-line work such as neural network train-
ing or data regression analysis. They could be fur-
ther improved when measured quality data become
available in the future. Different from previous mod-
eling approaches, Ivester et al. developed a virtual
search method (VSM), which interleaved process
tuning and model development.94 The quality ob-
server was expressed as an input–output (I-O) model
that mapped the process parameters to quality char-
acteristics. The structure of VSM is shown in Fig. 8.
In their proposed method, the I-O model was first
used as a virtual process for parameter tuning. Only
when the search for a feasible operation region had
been exhausted based on the current I-O model, or
the feasibility of the inputs obtained from the current
I-O model needed testing, was the input suggested
by the search algorithm applied to the real process.
Subsequently, the measurements of part quality at-
tributes obtained from the process could be used to
update the I-O model.
Generally speaking, the development of a quality
observer or model plays a key role in online quality
control due to the lack of online quality measure-
ments. It should be kept in mind that all models
discussed above have their limitations. An empiri-
cal model needs considerable experimental effort to
build. The model-fitness error highly depends on the
experimental results, which are inevitably affected
FIGURE 8. Diagram of virtual search method.94
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
by system disturbances and measurement noises.
Moreover, the model is applicable only to the specific
case investigated. As to online simulation, it faces
the challenges of reducing the computation time to
be comparable to the cycle time while maintaining
prediction accuracy given the necessary modeling
simplifications, especially for large and complicated
parts. Recently, artificial intelligence represented by
ANN has been increasingly investigated for creat-
ing quality models. This is because ANNs are more
flexible, have higher fitting precision of available
data, and are also convenient for generalizing the
modeling process. But this method has weaknesses
similar to the other empirical models mentioned
above.
It seems that the difficulty of developing an on-
line quality sensor poses an obstacle to fully auto-
mated quality control for the injection molding pro-
cess. Fortunately, there are quite a few studies that
reported encouraging progress along this line. For
example, by using ultrasonic transducers, both the
melt-front velocity in the filling stage and the gap
between the part and mold wall surface during cool-
ing can be detected.78 It is expected that the inno-
vative quality sensor will eventually enable qual-
ity control. Otherwise, one has to refine the generic,
first-principle model and construct the “virtual sen-
sor” for quality response, which is not trivial work
either.95
Conclusions and Suggested
Research Topics
Injection molding control has gone through a pe-
riod of fast development in the past decade, accom-
panied by several other key technologies such as
novel sensors and information technology (IT). It is
useful to review the up-to-date advancements in this
area in order to identify the right path toward the
final, fully automated production with real time, on-
line quality control. Based on the topics discussed
in this paper, the following research issues are sug-
gested for future studies:
1. Injection molding control needs to be treated
as an integrated system that includes ma-
chine, mold, material, and process. The well-
developed VLSI-based functional hardware
chips, such as microprocessors and memory,
make it possible to process all of the variables
179
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
involved in injection molding as a single sys-
tem, akin to other large scale, continuous
industrial processes (e.g., petroleum oil refin-
ery). The integrated control system does not
necessarily reside in a single, “main” computer;
it can be distributed among several computa-
tion units linked with a high-speed connection.
Moreover, the integrated control system can be
further seamlessly integrated with other high-
level production management tools.
2. The implementation of online quality control
largely depends on the availability of qual-
ity sensors. Although it can be a difficult
task, developing suitable sensors for measur-
ing molded part quality online is still feasi-
ble. Nondestructive transducers for measuring
polymer behavior inside the cavity are pre-
ferred. In the meantime, it is also desirable
to improve the accuracy of CAE software to
such a degree that the discrepancies between
experiments and simulation are minimized
and/or can be accommodated in a systematic
way.
3. Once CAE software is accurate enough, it
can be incorporated into the closed-loop, on-
line process, and quality control, where the
simulation can communicate with the ma-
chine and process controllers, accepting initial
and boundary conditions for simulation, even
adaptively adjusting parameters in the mate-
rial models. It is therefore beneficial to combine
the simulation with quality control and fuse the
information from the process and simulation
program.
4. Control-oriented process and quality models
are needed. They should be built and vali-
dated online based on either accurate CAE
predictions or experimental measurements.
Based on these models, the advanced con-
trol algorithms successfully applied in other
processes can be utilized for injection mold-
ing. By doing so, control of injection molding
will be totally based on generic and scientific
methodologies.
5. Multiple-objective optimization is necessary
for both process setting and control because
of the typical multiple-part quality indices.
In fact, they can be unified in the sense of
process optimization; namely, process setting
is in the start-up period to achieve optimal
process conditions for high quality, and con-
trol is to keep the optimal quality after the
180
system enters the steady state but still faces
disturbances.
Acknowledgments
This research is partially supported by the UW-
Madison Graduate School I&EDR Award. We would
also like to thank Professor K. K. Wang and Dr. C.
A. Hieber at Cornell University for their input and
support during the early stage of this work.
References
1. The Society of the Plastics Industry Website, “About the In-
dustry,” http://www.plasticsindustry.org/industry/index.
htm.
2. Wang, K. K.; Zhou, J.; Sakurai, Y. In ANTEC’99 1999; pp. 611–
615.
3. Wang, K. K.; Hieber, C. A.; Wang, N.; Zhou, J.; Lee, M. C.;
Sakurai, Y. In Cornell Injection Molding Program Progress
Report no. 21, 2000; Ch. XI.
4. Gao, F.; Yang, Y. In ANTEC’97, 1997; pp. 480–486.
5. C-Mold, AC-Technology Co., 2000.
6. Moldflow, Moldflow Co., 2003.
7. Tan, K. H.; Yuen, M. M. F. In Proceedings of International Con-
ference on Manufacturing Automation, Hong Kong, 1997;
pp. 832–837.
8. Richard, C.; Helps, G.; Strong, A. B. In Proceedings of IEEE-
Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufactur-
ing and Coil Winding Conference, 1999; pp. 259–265.
9. Johnson, B. P. In ANTEC’02, 2002; no. 190.
10. Mok, S. L.; Kwong, C. K. J Intell Manuf 2002, 13(3), 165–176.
11. Kameoka, S.; Haramoto, N.; Sakai, T. Adv Polym Technol
1993, 12(4), 403–418.
12. Turng, L. S.; Peić, M.; Bradley, D. K. J Injection Molding
Technol 2002, 6(2), 143–155.
13. Moldflow Plastics XpertTM (MPX), Moldflow Co., 2001.
14. Dr. C-Mold, AC-Technology Co., 1999.
15. Nirkhe, C. P.; Barry, C. M. F. In ANTEC’03, 2003; pp. 3534–
3538.
16. Speight, R. G.; Reisinger, L.; Lee, C.; Spence, M. In ANTEC’01,
2001; no. 553.
17. Bakharev, A. S.; Speight, R. G.; Thomas, A. R. In ANTEC’02,
2002; no. 567.
18. He, W.; Zhang, Y. F.; Lee, K. S.; Fuh, J. Y. H.; Nee, A. Y. C. J
Intell Manuf 1998, 9(1), 17–27.
19. Helps, C. R.; Strong, A. B.; Al-Zubi, R.; Lunt, B. M.; Kohkonen,
K. E. J Injection Molding Technol 1993, 3(4), 212–225.
20. Kim, J. G.; Shin, I. H.; Han, W. H.; Lee, J. W. J Injection Molding
Technol 2000, 4(4), 201–210.
VOL. 24, NO. 3
 INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
21. Rewal, N.; Toncich, D.; Friedl, C. J Injection Molding Technol
1998, 2(3), 109–119.
22. Tan, K. H.; Yuen, M. M. F. Polym Eng Sci 2000, 40(4), 956–971.
23. Liao, S. J.; Chang, D. Y.; Chen, H. J.; Tsou, L. S.; Ho, J. R.; Yan,
H. T.; Hsieh, W. H.; Wang, J. T.; Su, Y. C. In ANTEC’02, 2002;
no. 872.
24. Pro Set 200/700, Allen Bradley/Rockwell Automation, 1997.
25. MACO
R
, Eurotherm/Barber-Colman, 2003.
26. Xtreem XP, Milacron Inc., 2003.
27. Ziemba, R. In IEEE Conference of Electrical Engineering Prob-
lems in the Rubber and Plastics Industries, 1989; pp. 12–
19.
28. Bulgrin, T. C.; Richards, T. H. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 1995, 31(6),
1350–1357.
29. Tsai, C.-C.; Liu, C.-H. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 1998, 34(2), 310–
318.
30. Liu, C.-H.; Tsai, C.-C. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2001, 48(5),
968–975.
31. Shy, K.-Y.; Wang, Y.-T. In Proceedings of the World Congress
on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA), 2002; Vol. 4,
pp. 2557–2560.
32. Havlicsek, H.; Alleyne, A. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron
1999, 4(3), 312–323.
33. Tan, K. K.; Tang, J. C. Eng Appl Artificial Intell 2002, 15(1),
6572.
34. Yang, Y.; Gao, F. Control Eng Practice 2000, 8(11), 1285–1296.
35. Tan, K. K.; Huang, S. N.; Jiang, X. IEEE Trans Control Syst
Technol 2001, 9(4), 663–671.
36. Tsoi, H. P.; Gao, F. Polym Eng Sci 1999, 39(1), 3–17.
37. Gao, F.; Yang, Y.; Shao, C. Chem Eng Sci 2001, 56(24), 7025–
7034.
38. Cheng, J.-W.; Lin, Y.-W.; Liao, F.-S. In ANTEC’03, 2003;
pp. 556–560.
39. Lewis, F. L.; Syrmos, V. L. Optimal Control; Wiley: New York,
1995.
40. Clarke, D. Advances in Model-Based Predictive Control;
Oxford University Press: New York, 1994.
41. Wang, K. K.; Shen, S. F.; Cohen, C.; Hieber, C. A.; Isayev, A. I.
Cornell Injection Molding Program Progress Report no. 10,
Cornell University, 1984.
42. Huang, S.; Tan, K. K.; Lee, T. H. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 1999,
38(2), 285–303.
43. Rafizadeh, M.; Patterson, W. I.; Kamal, M. R. Int Polym Pro-
cess 1996, 11(4), 352–361.
44. Chang, T. C. J Injection Molding Technol 2002, 6(4), 239–246.
45. Sheth, B.; Barry, C. M. F.; Schott, N. R.; Higdon, R. D.; Davison,
B. In ANTEC’01 2001; no. 306.
46. Zheng, D.; Alleyne, A. Trans ASME. J Manuf Sci Eng 2003,
125(1), 154–163.
47. Agrawal, A. R.; Pandelidis, I. O.; Pecht, M. Polym Eng Sci
1987, 27(18), 1345–1357.
48. Dininger, J. In IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual
Meeting 1994; Vol. 3, 2159–2164.
49. Pierick, D.; Noller, R. In ANTEC’91 1991; pp. 252–258.
50. Gao, F.; Patterson, W. I.; Kamal, M. R. Polym Eng Sci 1996,
36(9), 1272–1285.
51. Collins, C. Assembly Automation 1999, 19(3), 197–202.
ADVANCES IN POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
52. Gao, F.; Patterson, W. I.; Kamal, M. R. Adv Polym Technol
1994, 13(2), 111–120.
53. Rafizadeh, M.; Kamal, M. R.; Patterson, W. I. In ANTEC’97,
1997; pp. 582–587.
54. Gao, F.; Patterson, W. I.; Kamal, M. R. Polym Eng Sci 1996,
36(19), 2467–2476.
55. Havlicsek, H.; Alleyne, A. In Proceedings of the American
Control Conference, 1999; Vol. 1, pp. 171–175.
56. Wang, B.; Gao, F.; Yue, P. Chin J Chem Eng 2000, 8(4), 326–331.
57. Mapleston, P. Mod Plast 1999, 29(8), 29.
58. Petrova, T.; Kazmer, D. Adv Polym Technol 1999, 18(1), 19–31.
59. Dubay, R. J Injection Molding Technol 2001, 5(2), 72–79.
60. Woll, S. L. B.; Cooper, D. J. Polym Eng Sci 1997, 37(5), 801–812.
61. Woll, S. L. B.; Cooper, D. J. Polym Eng Sci 1996, 36(11), 1477–
1488.
62. Kazmer, D.; Barkan, P. Polym Eng Sci 1997, 37(11), 1880–1895.
63. Xu, G.; Koelling, K. W. In ANTEC’03, 2003; pp. 566–570.
64. Yang, Y.; Gao, F. Polym Eng Sci 1999, 39(10), 2042–2063.
65. Orzechowski, S.; Paris, A.; Dobbin, C. J. B. J Injection Molding
Technol 1998, 2(3), 141–148.
66. Zhao, C.; Gao, F. Polym Eng Sci 1999, 39(9), 1787–1801.
67. Richard, C.; Helps, G.; Griffen, B. T. Plast Eng 1994, 50(10),
25–27.
68. Dubay, R.; Bell, A. C.; Gupta, Y. P. Polym Eng Sci 1997, 37(9),
1550–1563.
69. Pramujati, B.; Dubay, R. J Injection Molding Technol 2002,
6(4), 247–258.
70. Dubay, R.; Bell, A. C.; Gupta, Y. P. J Injection Molding Technol
1998, 2(1), 37–45.
71. Buja, F. J. US Patent 4904172, 1990.
72. Wenskus, J. In ANTEC’88, 1988; pp. 305–309.
73. Wenskus, J.; Miller, A. B. US Patent 5063008, 1991.
74. Müller, N.; Schott, N. R. J Injection Molding Technol 2000,
4(3), 120–125.
75. Mortizer, E.; Neumann, M. In ANTEC’99, 1999; no. 81.
76. Edwards, R.; Thomas, C. L. Polym Eng Sci 2001, 41(9), 1644–
1653.
77. Baek, S. Y.; Edwards, R.; Thomas, C. L. In ANTEC’00, 2000;
no. 1038.
78. Nishiwaki, N.; Hori, S.; Yoshida, K.; Mineo, K. In IEEE Ultra-
sonics Symposium, 1998; pp. 755–758.
79. Wang, H.; Cao, B.; Jen, C. K.; Nguyen, K. T.; Viens, M. Polym
Eng Sci 1997, 37(2), 363–376.
80. Brown, E. C.; Dawson, A. J.; Coates, P. D. In ANTEC’00, 2000;
no. 592.
81. Wenskus, J. J. J Injection Molding Technol 1997, 1(3), 151–157.
82. Rewal, N.; Toncich, D. J Injection Molding Technol 1998, 2(3),
109–119.
83. Ricketson, R. C.; Wang, K. K. In ANTEC’87, 1987; pp. 231–
234.
84. Liang, J. M.; Wang, P. J. J Injection Molding Technol 2002, 6(1),
58–71.
85. Liang, J. M.; Wang, P. J. J Injection Molding Technol 2002, 6(4),
331–342.
86. Vagelatos, G. A.; Rigatos, G. G.; Tzafestas, S. G. Expert Sys-
tems Appl 2001, 20(2), 207–216.
181
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS AND QUALITY CONTROL
87. Seaman, C. M.; Desrochers, A. A.; List, G. F. IEEE Trans
Systems Man Cybernetics 1993, 23(2), 414–426.
88. Kamal, M. R.; Varela, A. E.; Patterson, W. I. Polym Eng Sci
1999, 39(5), 940–952.
89. Wang, P. J.; Wang, K. K. In ANTEC’91, 1991; pp. 2336–2340.
90. Michaeli, W.; Lauterbach, M. Adv Polym Technol 1989, 9(4),
337–343.
91. Sheth, H. R.; Nunn, R. E. J Injection Molding Technol 1998,
2(2), 86–94.
182
92. Wang, P. J.; Lin, J. Y. In CAE and Intelligent Process-
ing of Polymeric Materials, 1997; MD-Vol. 79, pp. 265–
279.
93. Sheth, H. R.; Nunn, R. E. J Injection Molding Technol 2001,
5(3), 141–151.
94. Ivester, R.; Danai, K.; Kazmer, D. J Injection Molding Technol
1998, 2(3), 103–108.
95. Cheng, J.-W.; Chao, T.-C.; Chang, L.-H. In ANTEC’03, 2003;
pp. 392–396.
VOL. 24, NO. 3