Conference PaperPDF Available

Characterizing Energy Consumption of the Injection Molding Process

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Presently available systems for sustainability assessment do not fully account for aspects related to a product’s manufacturing. In an effort to make more sustainable decisions, today’s industry seeks reliable methods to assess and compare sustainability for manufacturing. As part of the Sustainable Manufacturing program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), one of our objectives is to help develop the needed measurement science, standards and methodologies to evaluate and improve sustainability of manufacturing processes. As a first step towards developing standard reference sustainability characterization methodologies for unit manufacturing processes, in this paper we focus on injection molding with energy as the sustainability indicator. We present a science-based guideline to characterize energy consumption for a part manufactured using the injection molding process. Based on the study, we discuss the selection of process parameters and manufacturing resources, determination of cycle time, theoretical minimum energy computations, and estimated energy computations for characterizing the injection molding process.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 1
Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference
MSEC2013
June 10-14, 2013, Madison, Wisconsin
MSEC2013-1222
CHARACTERIZING ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE INJECTION MOLDING
PROCESS
Jatinder Madan
Systems Integration Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Maryland, USA
&
Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Longowal, Sangrur, India
Email: jatinder.madan@nist.gov
Mahesh Mani
Systems Integration Division,
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Maryland, USA
&
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland, USA
Kevin W. Lyons
Systems Integration Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Maryland, USA
ABSTRACT
Presently available systems for sustainability assessment
do not fully account for aspects related to a product’s
manufacturing. In an effort to make more sustainable decisions,
today’s industry seeks reliable methods to assess and compare
sustainability for manufacturing. As part of the Sustainable
Manufacturing program at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), one of our objectives is to help
develop the needed measurement science, standards and
methodologies to evaluate and improve sustainability of
manufacturing processes. As a first step towards developing
standard reference sustainability characterization
methodologies for unit manufacturing processes, in this paper
we focus on injection molding with energy as the sustainability
indicator. We present a science-based guideline to characterize
energy consumption for a part manufactured using the injection
molding process. Based on the study, we discuss the selection
of process parameters and manufacturing resources,
determination of cycle time, theoretical minimum energy
computations, and estimated energy computations for
characterizing the injection molding process.
Keywords: sustainable manufacturing; injection molding; cycle
time; theoretical minimum energy; energy consumption;
information models.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability assessment systems do not fully account for
aspects related to a product’s manufacturing, such as manufac-
turing resources, process parameters and cycle time. In an effort
to make more sustainable decisions, today’s industry seeks reli-
able methods to assess and compare sustainability for manufac-
turing.
The sustainability assessment is made by way of key sus-
tainability performance indicators, such as energy and air emis-
sion. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD) [1] defines 18 key performance indicators
(KPIs) for sustainable manufacturing, which include water in-
tensity, energy intensity, renewable energy intensity, and others.
Energy is an important KPI for sustainable manufacturing and
is the focus in this paper.
In this paper, we selected the injection molding process for
characterizing energy. Injection molded parts are widely used in
consumer products and industrial equipment. For example, the
injection molded components constitute 42 % and 33 % in toys
and medical equipment components, respectively. The extent of
energy use in manufacturing processes in general, and the injec-
tion molding process in particular, are well recognized [2, 3].
According to Gutowski et al. [4], injection molding processes
use energy in the order of 10 MJ/kg, not counting auxiliary
operations such as compounding and drying, which is compa-
rable to other processes like machining [5]. The overall energy
consumption in the US injection molding industry on a yearly
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 2
basis amounts to 2.06 x 108 GJ. This is comparable to the ener-
gy consumption for sand casting and to the entire electricity
production of some developed countries [6].
The injection molding process consists of melting raw pol-
ymer granules, also referred to as plasticating1 [7], and injecting
the molten polymer into a mold (or die). A typical injection
mold has a cavity, which is a negative of the part being pro-
duced. When the cavity is filled with plastic, it is cooled and the
plastic becomes solid material resulting in a positive compo-
nent. After the injected molten polymer is solidified, the mold,
which consists of two halves, is opened, and the solidified part
is ejected out by force. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of
the injection molding machine.
Figure 1: Injection molding process schematics [8]
To help US industries, one of the objectives of the Sustain-
ability Manufacturing program of NIST is to develop measure-
ment science standards and methodologies to evaluate and im-
prove sustainability of manufacturing processes [3]. As a pre-
cursor, this paper presents a science-based guideline to charac-
terize energy consumption for the injection molding process.
The organization of this paper is as follows. The next
section presents a summary of the work related to energy
consumption in the injection molding process alongside
research gaps and objectives of this paper. The following
section discusses the stages of the injection molding process,
and presents a brief overview of the proposed guideline with
the help of its schematic. Subsequent sections deal with
different steps of the proposed guideline, namely: (i) select
initial process parameters, (ii) define cavity details and
determine other process parameters, (iii) select injection
molding machine, (iv) determine cycle time and theoretical
minimum energy, and (v) estimate energy consumption. Next, a
summary of the different parameters influencing energy
consumption for the injection molding process is presented.
1 Plasticating refers to conversion of plastic granules to flow-able melt. It
happens inside the screw barrel assembly of the injection unit in the injection
molding machine.
o The plastic granules move inside the screw channel when screw is rotated.
o The screw has three zones: feed, compression and metering.
o In the compression zone the material is gradually compressed.
o Plastic material under shear changes its viscosity (Shear Thinning)
o Melt is then homogenized in metering zone.
Lastly, we conclude with a brief discussion of future research
directions.
RELATED WORK
In this section, the literature related to the determination of
energy consumption in the injection molding processes is
discussed at different levels of industry, factory, machine and
process. A brief summary of the research gaps and objectives of
the present work is also presented at the end of this section.
Industry sector level: Thiriez and Gutowski [6] studied the
impact of the type of injection molding machine on the specific
energy consumption (SEC2). The SEC typically varies from
13.2 MJ/kg for electrically powered machines to 19.0 MJ/kg for
those using hydraulic systems. The Rigid Plastics Packaging
Group [9] quantified total energy requirements, energy sources,
atmospheric pollutants, waterborne pollutants, and solid waste
for two plastic fabrication processes, namely injection molding
and thermoforming. The scope of the study was to generate a
life cycle inventory (LCI) database for products made by injec-
tion molding and thermoforming in the North America.
Factory level: Lu et al. [10] developed a process modeling
parameter optimization algorithm using a genetic algorithm
(GA) based on the lexicographic method. The implementation
of their framework reduced the energy consumption for a la-
boratory scale test. Pun et al. [11] proposed a multiple-criteria
methodology for evaluating environmental impacts in the plas-
tic injection molding. They identified various indicators of en-
vironmental impact assessment and established a multiple-
criteria rating matrix. The study provided injection molding
manufacturers with a means to assess the environmental per-
formance and perform benchmarking analysis. Muroyama et al.
[12] suggested that discrete event simulation (DES) and life
cycle assessment (LCA) functionality can be combined to ana-
lyze the utilization and processing of manufacturing resources
in a factory setting. They demonstrated DES and LCA’s ability
to facilitate decision-making and, optimize the injection mold-
ing process in terms of productivity and energy use.
Machine level: Kanungo and Swan [13] investigated the
energy consumption of all electric and hydraulic injection
molding machines. They compared various aspects like energy
consumption, cost, throughput, and process parameters affect-
ing energy consumption.
Process level: Qureshi et al. [14] presented an empirical
approach to characterize the relationship between energy con-
sumption and process variables for the injection molding pro-
cess. Riberio et al. [15] presented a thermodynamic model that
estimates the energy consumption for any injection molded part
based on its geometry and the material. They initially consider
the efficiency of the system to be 100 % and then take different
values of machine efficiency to compare estimated and actual
energy consumption. Weissman et al. [16] developed a method-
ology to compute estimates for the total energy consumption
for manufacturing of injection molding parts. It utilizes part
2 SEC is the energy consumption per unit of throughput. For example
energy consumption per unit mass.
Feed zone
Compression
zone
Metering
zone
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 3
information to determine shot size and cycle time. Based on the
actual power consumption of the different drives, the energy
usage is determined for a specific injection molded part. Kalla
et al. [17] provided a methodology to collect unit process life
cycle inventory (uplci) for the injection molding process using
the CO2PE! framework [18].
Research gaps
Despite very useful work of the researchers, based on our
review, we identified some research gaps mentioned below.
i. Most of the reported research provides industry, factory,
or machine level analysis, which cannot accurately esti-
mate the energy performance at the process level.
ii. Studies at the process level are useful to collect data but
have limited application for estimation and benchmark-
ing a wide range of materials and manufacturing re-
sources.
iii. Pre and post operations, such as drying, which are close-
ly associated with the process, have not been considered.
This paper attempts to fill above mentioned research gaps.
To overcome the research gaps, there is a need to develop a
science-based guideline, which includes the required pre and
post operations to estimate energy consumption for the injec-
tion molding process. Various factors related to part design,
manufacturing resources, material and process planning need to
be considered for energy estimation. The guideline should sup-
port multiple methods for comparing injection molding pro-
cesses based on the theoretical minimum energy requirements.
Objectives of the present work
The objectives the paper are:
Determine theoretical minimum energy required for the in-
jection molding process.
Establish guidelines for estimating the energy consumption
of the injection molding process, which also includes pre
and post operations.
The subsequent sections provide details of our proposed
guideline.
INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS STAGES AND BRIEF
METHODOLOGY OF THE PROPOSED GUIDELINE
In this section, we first provide a brief overview of the
injection molding process followed by a brief description of our
proposed methodology.
Stages of the injection molding process
The injection molding process is comprised of three stages:
drying, injection molding, and regrinding. In the drying stage,
the plastic beads and the reusable scrap are fed into the dryer,
where it is either set free of moisture or the moisture is brought
down to an acceptable level. In the second stage of injection
molding, the solid plastic mixture (plastic beads and reusable
scrap) is fed to the injection molding machine, where it is
melted and the actual injection molding process is carried out.
The injection molding process cycle consists of mold closing,
injecting, cooling, mold opening, and ejecting. Other operations
of feeding and melting, which take place within the injection
molding machine, operate parallel to the injection molding.
Lastly, in the third stage of regrinding, runner, gates, and any
other solid plastic, which is attached to the part, is removed for
regrinding.
Sustainability characterization methodology
Sustainability characterization methodology primarily
comprises performance metrics, process analytics and
supporting information models for sustainability [3]. In lieu of
pursuing a comprehensive sustainability characterization
methodology, we focus on the injection molding process with
energy as a performance metric and discuss corresponding
analytics to compute the theoretical minimums for
benchmarking and comparison purposes.
Figure 2 presents a schematic of our proposed guideline.
The schematic shows the interaction of the information
required for characterizing energy consumption for the
injection molding process. The steps of the guideline are
subsequently explained in later sections of the paper.
Figure 2: Schematic of the guideline for estimating injection
molding energy consumption
Injection molding
machine selection
determination
Injection
molding
material
information
Cavity details and
determining other
process parameters
Part design
information
Injection
molding
machines
information
Clamping unit
Injection unit
Theoret
ical minimum
energy computations
Estimated energy
consumption
Machine
/Auxiliary
equipment
performance
rating
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 4
The five steps of the proposed guideline are mentioned be-
low.
i. Determine initial process parameters
ii. Define cavity details and determine other process pa-
rameters
iii. Select injection molding machine
iv. Determine cycle time and theoretical minimum energy
requirements
v. Estimate energy consumption
An injection mold part design provides the necessary
details like part material, volume, weight, and wall thickness. In
Step 1, these details are used to find initial process parameters,
such as injection pressure and temperature. Step 2 is used to
determine other process parameters, such as the injection force,
and the required number of cavities. In Step 3, based on the
cavity details and process parameters, the selection of the
suitable injection molding machine is made. Step 4 helps
determine the process cycle time and theoretical minimum
energy requirements for the process. Lastly, Step 5 of the
guideline helps estimate the energy consumption taking into
account the process-specific manufacturing resources. The
following sections provide details of these steps.
SELECTING INITIAL PROCESS PARAMETERS
Injection molding process parameters like injection pres-
sure, injection temperature, and ejection temperature are related
to the material and, to some extent, to the geometric details of
the part. These parameters affect the energy required for the
injection molding process. The determination of these initial
process parameters is discussed.
Injection pressure: This is the pressure exerted on the melt in
front of the screw tip during the injection stage, when the screw
is acting like a plunger. It is a common practice to refer to the
corresponding pressure in the hydraulic cylinder as the injec-
tion molding pressure. Since a considerable amount of this
pressure is lost by the time the melt reaches the cavity, the max-
imum pressure of the standard barrel is calculated using Eq. 1
[19].
p~1.25× p (1)
where pmax (MPa) and pinj (MPa) are the maximum pressure
required from the injection molding machine and the required
injection pressure respectively. The required injection pressure
depends upon the type of the material and part characteristics. A
representative list of pressure requirements for some plastic
materials, which varies with part characteristics, is given in
Table 1.
Injection and mold temperatures: Injection temperature and the
temperature inside the mold are the key process parameters.
Recommended processing temperatures for some thermoplastic
materials are provided in Table 2.
Table 1: Injection pressure (pinj) for producing plastic parts [19]
Plastic
material3 Required effective injection pressure (MPa)
Easy flow
material,
heavy
sections
Medium flow
materials,
standard sec-
tions
High vis-
cosity
material,
thin sec-
tions
Thin-wall
parts, thin
wall injec-
tion
ABS 80 to 110 100 to 130 130 to150 150 to 200
CAB 80 to 110 100 to 130 130 to 160 N/A
POM
90
to 1
10
110
to
130
130
to
150
N/A
Table 2: Recommended injection and mold temperatures [19]
Plastic
material Injection temperature
(°C) Mold temperature
(°C)
ABS 200 to 260 40 to 60
CAB
180
to
220
40
to
80
POM 180 to 230 80 to120
CAVITY DETAILS AND SELECTION OF OTHER PRO-
CESS PARAMETERS
After the initial parameters are selected, the next step is to
decide the number of cavities in the mold (or die). As defined
earlier, cavity is a negative of the part being produced. In the
injection molding process, the mold may have a single cavity or
multiple cavities, which helps attain a higher production rate.
The number of cavities effects many parameters of the injection
molding process including injection volume (or shot volume),
projected area, and injection force. The method to compute
these parameters is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Shot volume: Shot volume for a cavity is the amount of molten
polymer required to fill the mold cavity, in each cycle. Since
most of materials shrink in volume when cooled, a shrinkage
allowance is given to the cavity. Therefore, shot volume pri-
marily should take care of shrinkage compensation due to cool-
ing and additional material required for gates and runners. To
compensate for shrinkage, the volume of a cavity (m3) can be
found using Eq. 2.
V= V(1 + ε100
) (2)
where ε is the percentage shrinkage rate of the polymer from
injection temperature to room temperature and V (m3) is the
volume of the injection molded part.
Furthermore, using Eq. 3 [20] the volume of the gating sys-
tem, which is a function of the part volume, can be calculated.
V= V1+ε100
+Δ100
(3)
whereΔ is the percentage of the part volume used for the gat-
ing system, and n is the number of cavities.
Cavity projected area: The cavity projected area is simply the
area of cross-section perpendicular to the withdrawal direction
(or opening direction of the mold). According to Boothroyd et
al. [20], the increase in projected area of the cavity due to pres-
3 ABS Polystyrene and styrene copolymers
CAB Cellulose acetate butyrate
POM Polyoxymethylene
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 5
ence of gates and runners is proportional to the increase in vol-
ume. The cavity projected area is therefore found using Eq. 4.
A= A×
(4)
where  (m2) and  (m2) are the total projected area of
the cavity (along-with gating system) and the part, respectively.
Separating force: When the molten polymer is injected into the
cavity at high pressure, core and cavity halves of the die tend to
separate by a force, which is known as the separating force. The
separating force4 (MN) is calculated using Eq. 5.
F=p×A (5)
SELECTING THE INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
After injection molding process parameters are determined,
the next step is to identify the production planning requirements
for selecting the appropriate machine. For estimating energy
consumption, the information about the specific injection mold-
ing machine is required. We assume that the number of cavities
is decided before the injection molding machine is selected.
Basically, an injection molding machine may be divided into
two units, namely a clamping unit and an injection unit. The
suitability of a die-cavity needs to be checked for both the
units. As an example, specifications of an injection molding
machine are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Specification of an injection molding machine [21]
Item
Unit
Machine ID
Clamp unit
Clamp
force
tf
5
100
Clamp
stroke
m
0.
35
Ejector
force
tf
3
Injection unit
Injection
unit
Injection Unit 1
Injection Unit 2
Injection
capacity
cm
3
38
78
130
78
162
254
Shot
volume
(PS)
g
35
72
120
72
149
234
Max. Inj
.
pressure
MPa
284
287
174
287
247
158
Plasticizing
capacity
g/s
6.1
11.1
23
11
23.1
33.3
The injection molding process parameters used to select a
suitable injection molding machine are discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
4 The total separating force has to be increased if depth of the part is more
than 25 mm. For every additional 25 mm of depth, a 10 % increase in cavity
pressure is provided, and this aspect is considered while deciding the separating
force. [27]
5 tf is tonne force
Injection capacity: The injection capacity,  (m3)
of the injection machine refers to the maximum possible design
displacement of the reciprocating screw and can be found using
Eq. 6 [19].
 =D2
×π× S (6)
where D (m) is the diameter of the injection screw, and S (m) is
the injection stroke6.
Injection capacity is also used to find the realistically at-
tainable volume,  (m3) of the injection molded cavity
using Eq. 7 [19].
V= k×V (7)
where k is a correction factor with a value between 0.7 and 0.8,
which indicates that the maximum possible injection volume
does not correspond to the maximum injection capacity. The
attainable injection volume is useful to check machine injection
capacity against the cavity requirements represented by shot
volume.
Clamp force: To keep the die closed during the injection
molding process, the machine clamp force should be higher
than the separating force.
Plasticizing capacity: Plasticizing capacity is defined as the
amount of plastic that can be melted, homogenized and heated
to processing temperature in the barrel, per unit of time [22].
The machine plasticizing capacity should be such that the re-
quired amount of melt is available, when the machine is ready
for the next cycle.
Clamp stroke: Clamp stroke of the machine should be higher
by 5 cm than the part height (or maximum dimension of the
part in the die-opening direction).
CYCLE TIME AND THEORETICAL MINIMUM ENERGY
COMPUTATIONS
In this section, components of the injection molding cycle
time are discussed, followed by the theoretical minimum
energy requirements.
Injection molding cycle time
Components of the injection molding cycle time are:
injection time, cooling time and mold resetting time. The
procedure to determine each of these components [20] is
mentioned in the following paragraphs.
Injection time: To find injection time, shot volume and average
flow rate need to be determined. Determination of shot volume
has already been discussed in the previous section. The
procedure to find the average flow rate is discussed below.
6 The optimum value of the feeding stroke S is generally taken between 1D to
2D to ensure good quality parts. The maximum utilizable shot weight
corresponds to feeding stroke of 3D.
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 6
Maximum Flow rate (m3/s) Q =
 × 10 (8)
where  is machine injection power (kW), and  (MPa) is
the recommended injection pressure.
However, in practice the average flow rate, Qavg (m3/s)
decreases as the mold is filled, which is found using Eq. 9.
Q= 0.5×Q (9)
Therefore, the injection time (s)
t=
 (10)
Cooling time: This is the time taken by the molten plastic to
solidify inside the mold. Equation 11 is used to find the cooling
time, tc (s):
tc=hπ×α
× log4TTTT
(11)
where Tx is the recommended part ejection temp (°C), Tm is
recommended mold temperature (°C), Tinj is the polymer
injection temperature (°C), hmax is the maximum wall thickness
(mm), α is the thermal diffusivity of the material (cm2/s).
However, to make sure that the runners are solidified and
the solidified part comes clean from the mold, the minimum
cooling time is taken as 3s.
Mold resetting time: Mold resetting time is the time already
stated for the mold to open and close. The mold resetting time,
tr, is estimated using Eq. 12.
t= 1 + 1.75t
(12)
where td is the dry cycle time of the machine (s), S is the
maximum clamp stroke of the machine (cm) and, d is the depth
of the part (cm).
The total cycle time, ttotal (s) is sum of above three
components of the injection molding cycle.
Determining theoretical minimum energy
After different components of the cycle time are
determined, the next step is to find the theoretical minimum
energy required for each stage of the injection molding process.
We divide the energy consumption of the injection molding
process into the following:
i. Injection molding process energy
ii. Auxiliary operations energy
i. Injection molding process energy (Eprocess): In the injection
molding process a number of operations take place. These
operations are:
Melting the polymer
Injecting the molten polymer
Cooling
Clamping, opening, ejecting and closing the mold
The theoretical minimum energy required for these
operations is discussed in the following paragraphs. The energy
computation is for a single injection molding cycle (or shot).
Energy for melting the polymer (Emelt): Before polymer is
injected into the die, it is heated and melted. The energy
required for heating and melting is derived from two actions of
the injection molding machines: extrusion screw and barrel
heating. Equation 13 is used to find power used for heating and
melting [23].
P=ρQCTT+ρQH (13)
where Po is the power required for melting (kW), Cp is the
heat capacity of the polymer (J/kg°C), ρ is specific density
(kg/m3), Tpol is the initial temperature of the polymer (°C), Qavg
is the volume rate of flow of the polymer (m3/s), and Hf is the
polymer heat of fusion (zero for amorphous polymer)
The energy required for melting the volume of plastic
required for one shot, E (kJ) is found using Eq. 14.
E= P×
(14)
Energy for injecting the polymer (Einj): According to
Johannaber [19], the injection or the plasticating unit of the
reciprocating screw injection molding machine has a major
influence on the quality of the final molded part. Its basic
function is to accept and convey free flowing solid plastic and
additives, perform melting, convey the melt along the screw,
mix the plastic and additives, possibly devolatilize the melt,
inject the melt into a shape providing cavity, and keep it there
under pressure. The theoretical energy required for injecting the
plasticated polymer into the cavity is the work done for filling
the cavity against pressure. The Eq. 15 is used to find the
injection energy, (kJ) [15].
E= p×V× 10 (15)
where pinj is the injection pressure required to fill the cavity
(MPa) with the polymer and Vshot (m3) is the shot volume.
Energy for cooling (Ecool): The molten polymer, which is
injected into the mold is cooled to a temperature, also known as
the ejection temperature. This means that a certain amount of
heat has to be taken out from the molded part. The amount of
heat to be taken out from the molded part, Hcool (J) is
represented by Eq. 16.
H=ρVCTT+ρVH (16)
In the previous section, we discussed a method to find the
cooling time. The cooling power required to take out the heat
from the mold,  (kW) is calculated using Eq. 17.
P =H t
(17)
The energy required for cooling,  (kJ) depends upon the
COP (coefficient of performance) of the cooling equipment
used. In Eq. 18, we assume that the COP of the cooling
equipment is the theoretical maximum (based on Carnot’s
cycle) [24], which leads to theoretical minimum energy
requirements.
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 7
E=
 × 10 (18)
Energy for clamping, ejection and opening/closing (Ereset): It
has been suggested in the literature that the energy required for
opening/closing, clamping and ejection is 25 % of the process
energy [25]. Equation 19 is used to find Ereset (kJ).
E= 0.25(E+E+E) (19)
ii. Auxiliary operations energy: As discussed previously, some
auxiliary operations are required alongside the injection
molding, which need to be included for energy computations.
The minimum theoretical energy required for these auxiliary
operations is discussed in this section.
Energy for drying of polymer (Edrying): According to Strumitto
et al. [26], the measure of energy consumption in a drying
process is the unit energy consumption for the evaporation of 1
kg of moisture. Theoretically, the amount of heat required to
evaporate 1 kg of moisture under standard conditions is 2200 kJ
to 2700 kJ, which is also referred to as the specific moisture
evaporation rate (SMER), as shown in Eq. 20.
SMER = 
 (20)
The upper limit of this value refers to the removal of bound
moisture. However, the only drying regime in which such a
result could be obtained is the adiabatic equilibrium in which
there is no heating of a solid body and accompanying moisture.
However, there are a number of factors which affect the
energy efficiency of the drying process. In the majority of the
cases, the most efficient approach for drying intensification is
likely to be the combination of several methods. By using
techniques such as mechanical centrifuging and heat recovery,
it is possible to achieve the SMER, which is higher than the
theoretical maximum. However, here we limit the scope to the
theoretical possibilities only.
Moisture content of different types of plastics and their
other properties related can be found from material databases or
resources such as Johannaber, 2007 [19]. A representative list of
material properties relevant for drying is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Moisture related properties of plastics [19]
Material
Test
method
(DIN)
Max. water
absorption in
standard
climate (%)
Max. water
absorption in
water bath
(%)
Max.
moisture
during
injection (%)
ABS 53495 0.3 to 0.5 0.7 0.2
CA
53472
3.5 to
5
.0
3.8
to
5
.0
0.2
CAB
53472
2.0 to
2.5
2
.0 to
2.5
0.2
From these properties, the estimated moisture in the plastic
can be computed; alternatively, the moisture content can be
found by applying the suggested testing method. The
theoretical energy required for drying, E (kJ) can be
determined using Eq. 21.
E=(M × m)/SMER (21)
Where M is the mass of the plastic loaded in the dryer (kg), and
m is the percentage of moisture in the plastic.
Energy required for loading, coloring and blending: The raw
plastic beads and regrind are first loaded in the machine hopper.
Blending may be defined as combining two or more types of
materials to give a uniform mixture. Blending units are actually
metering devices that allow a specified amount of ingredients to
be combined with a specific batch of plastic materials, before
they are fed into the molding machine hopper. For injection
molders, the blending may be required to achieve proper color
combinations, combine regrind with virgin pellets, adding
ingredients to improve flow, reduce sticking or enhance the
base material in a variety of ways [27, 28].
The blending can be done manually, which of-course does
not consume any energy. We therefore assume theoretical
minimum energy for this process to be zero. However, due to
inconsistencies of the manual method, automated, integral
blending systems are often used.
Energy for trimming: In the trimming operation, extra material
attached to the solid part, like runner, gate, and fins, are
removed from the part by shearing operation. The energy used
in the trimming operation, E (kJ) depends on the shear
strength of the material and the surface area of the trimming
portion.
E=τ×A× d× 10 (22)
Where,  is the shear strength of the polymer (MPa),  is
the surface area of the trimming portion (m2), and  is the
depth of trim portion (m).
COMPUTING ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION
The estimated energy consumption in the injection molding
process is higher than the theoretical minimum energy
requirements. Some of the energy is lost during transmission
from the energy-supplying unit to the energy-consuming unit
(or operation). Furthermore, there is some energy loss, when
the energy-supplying unit converts one form of energy to
another. For example, an electric motor converts electrical
energy to the rotational energy. We classify these energy losses
into two categories:
i. Energy loss during transmission
ii. Energy loss at drive unit
Energy loss in transmission
In the previous section, we discussed different operations,
which take place in the injection molding process. These
operations need energy and some of the energy is needed
during transmission. For example, it is estimated that
approximately 25 % of the injection pressure [19] is lost when
switching injection pressure to the holding pressure. The
maximum pressure therefore should be more than the required
pressure by 25 %, which contributes to the energy loss for
injection. Similarly, there is a loss of heat energy when heating
and melting of the polymer and cooling of the mold. These
energy losses are added to the theoretical minimum energy
requirements of the various operations of the injection molding
process.
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 8
Energy loss at the drive unit
Injection molding machines impose a very high demand on
the drive and control systems, because of the fact that the
plastic injection molding process is complex and the machine
cycle times are mostly short [19]. Though the modern
electromechanical drives have clear advantages, single electro-
hydraulic drives, consisting of an electric motor and a hydraulic
pump, are still in use in many places [29]. Energy loss for both
of these drives is discussed in this section.
Electro-mechanical drives: Electro-mechanical or the all-
electric injection molding machines, as they are commonly
called, do have the advantage of precision programmed
operations. In the new injection molding machines, all axes are
driven by the electric servo-motors. These axes control different
operations of the injection molding machines.
The advantages of having the all-electric injection molding
machines are that power is supplied in line with the
consumption, has minimal idling losses and good efficiency.
Approximately 20 % of the energy is used for control. The
reason for this is the power electronics of the servo-motors,
which consume much of the energy [19]. The electric drives
have the efficiencies from 0.87 to 0.95 [19]. It is also found that
75 % of the energy required for plastication comes from the
rotation of the screw, and the remaining 25 % by the heating
elements [23]. Furthermore, in addition to the process related
energy consumption, all injection molding machines consume
energy for some basic equipment like the display, fan, and other
equipment, which remain running throughout. The energy
consumption for an injection molding part manufacturing can
therefore be computed using equations 23-26.
If we take into account the injection molding process only,
the energy used for a single shot is sum of the energy required
for all the drives, as given in Eq. 23.
E=.
 +
+
+
.
 × 1.2 +P× t (23)
where Eshot is the energy required for injection molding a single
shot, is the power required for the basic energy consuming
units (kW), when machine is in stand-by mode, and ηinj, ηreset,
ηcooling, ηheater are the efficiencies of the different units for
injection, resetting, cooling and heating, respectively.
The auxiliary equipment like dryer, loader/blender, and
trimmer, are operational for a fraction of the time compared to
the injection molding machine. The energy required for
auxiliary operations can be found using Eq. 24.
E=
+
× t× f+

× t× f× W+
 (24)
where Ploader and Pblender are the power rating of the loader and
the blender (kW), Wloader and Wblender are the weight of charge in
loader and blender (kg), ηdryer is the efficiency of the drying
unit, Edrying is the energy required for the drying operation (kJ),
and floader and fblender are the fraction of time the loader and
blender are on. Similarly, ηtrimmer is the efficiency of the
trimmer.
Lastly, the energy consumption per part (kJ/part) is
determined by aggregating all the above components of energy
consumption and dividing by number of parts in a single shot as
shown in Eq. 25.
=+
(25)
where n is the number of cavities in the die.
Electro-hydraulic drives: Unlike the electromechanical drives,
which use a different drive unit for each axis, the electro-
hydraulic drives use a single drive unit and power is then
distributed to the different energy-consuming units or
operations. The basic operations of the injection molding
process remain the same. The flow of energy from the electric
motor, up to the energy-consuming operation goes through
various systems of the machine, like the hydraulic pump,
control valve, pipes and manifolds, and hydraulic motors. The
hydraulic motors are responsible for actually delivering the
power to the desired operation of the injection molding process.
Inefficiency at each stage of the power flow contributes to the
power loss. The efficiency of a hydro-mechanical system is
found by using Eq. 26 [19].
η=η×η×η (26)
where ηtot, ηmech, ηhydr, ηvol are the total, mechanical, hydraulic
and, volumetric efficiency, respectively, of the hydraulic
system.
To achieve higher efficiency, it is therefore necessary to
use the individual components with smaller losses, especially
for the hydraulic pumps and motors. The efficiency of a
hydraulic system is further reduced by modifying valves,
length, cross-section and flexibility of the pipeline, sharp
elbows, compressibility of the hydraulic fluid, and external
leaks.
The major difference between the electric injection
molding machine and the hydraulic one is that in hydraulic
machines the electric motor, which powers the hydraulic unit, is
always on. Because of this reason there are some idling losses.
The energy consumption of the hydraulic injection molding
machine therefore can be summarized as shown in Eq. 27.
E=(P+P)× t+E (27)
where  is the power consumption (kW), when the injection
molding machine is idle, is the basic power consumption,
and  is the energy required for completing the injection
molding cycle (kJ).
The equations derived in the previous section are also
applicable in the case of electro-hydraulic injection molding
machines, except for the values of the total efficiency available
for each of the operations.
FACTORS INFLUENCING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
In this section, we identify the relationship of various
influencing parameters with different components of the energy
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 9
consumption. The components of the energy use are divided
into two: injection molding and auxiliary operations. In Table 5,
these parameters are organized according to their dependence
on different sources, i.e., part geometry, part material,
material/process, others and manufacturing resources. For
example, the influence of part material information on energy
use can be easily identified from the table, which shows the
relationship of different material properties like heat capacity,
thermal diffusivity, and shear strength with different
components of energy. The motivation behind the schematic of
the guideline presented in Figure 2 and the classification of
various influencing parameters presented in Table 5 is to
facilitate development of supporting information models for
computing energy consumption as a scope of future work.
Table 5: Energy consuming operations and affecting parameters
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study is a step towards developing a generic
sustainability characterization methodology for unit
manufacturing processes. In this paper, the guideline to
characterize energy consumption of the injection molding
process was discussed. We discussed five steps of the proposed
guideline for computing estimated energy consumption. We
also presented a schematic which shows the various steps of the
guideline and the parametric information requirements for
characterizing energy for the injection molding process.
Classification of the parameters which influence energy
computations was also presented. The proposed guideline
overcomes the shortcomings of the available methods by: (i)
extending the system boundary of the injection molding process
to cover other stages like drying, blending, dosing, and
trimming, (ii) considering factors related to part design,
material, and process planning to compute theoretical minimum
energy and, (iii) making estimates of energy consumption using
manufacturing resource information. The proposed guideline
will be useful for estimating and benchmarking diverse
manufacturing processes and products made using the injection
molding process.
Another motivation behind the schematic presented, and
the classification of various influencing parameters, is to
facilitate the development of structured information models for
computing energy consumption. Development of structured
information models will help seamless information flow
between design and manufacturing domains, which would
greatly help develop design-for-energy tools.
The following are the potential future research directions
that need to be explored.
Showcase effectiveness of the proposed guideline with ac-
tual case studies.
Define system boundaries of the injection molding process
and auxiliary operations.
Include other inputs and outputs (material, water usage and
waste) of the process, along with energy consumption.
Develop guidelines to determine the efficiency of the
manufacturing resources, which vary according to the
technology use and process conditions.
Define structured information models for seamless flow of
information across design and manufacturing domains.
Address the issue of uncertainty in the analytical models.
Develop a standard reference methodology for sustainabil-
ity characterization of unit manufacturing processes.
DISCLAIMER
Mention of commercial products or services in this paper
does not imply approval or endorsement by NIST, nor does it
imply that such products or services are necessarily the best
available for the purpose.
REFERENCES
[1] Sustainable Manufacturing Toolkit, Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, France [Web page]:
http://www.oecd.org/innovation/green/toolkit/. [accessed
8/12/12].
[2] J. Jeswiet and S. Kara, Carbon emissions and CESTM in
manufacturing, CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology. vol.
57 (51), p. 17–20 (2008).
[3] M. Mani, J. Madan, J. H. Lee, K. Lyons and S. K. Gupta,
Characterizing sustainability for manufacturing performance
assessment, in Proceedings of the ASME 2012 IDETC/CIE,
Chicago, IL, USA (2012).
This material is not subject to copyright protection. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 10
[4] T. Gutowski, J. Dahmus and A. Thiriez, Electrical energy
requirements for manufacturing processes, in 13th CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, (2006).
[5] T. Gutowski, J. Dahmus, A. Thiriez, M. Branham and A.
Jones, A thermodynamic characterization of manufacturing
processes, in 2007 IEEE International Symposium on
Electronics and the Environment, ISEE, May 7, 2007 - May 10,
2007, Orlando, FL, United states (2007).
[6] A. Thiriez and T. Gutowski, An Environmental Analysis of
Injection Molding, in IEEE International Symposium on
Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco, CA (2006).
May 8-11.
[7] Plasticating, [Web page]:
http://www.pitfallsinmolding.com/plasticatingpage.html.
[accessed 8/17/12].
[8] Material Project Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, [Web page]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-
science-and-engineering/3-042-materials-project-laboratory-
spring-2008/. [accessed Nov. 7, 2012].
[9] Life cycle inventory of plastic fabrication processes:
Injection molding and thermoforming,
CLIENTS\RPPG\KC112362, Rigid Plastic Packaging Group,
(2011).
[10] N. Lu, G. Gong, Y. Yang and J. Lu, Multi-objective
process parameter optimization for energy saving in injection
molding process, Journal of Zhejiang University - SCIENCE A.
382-394 (2012).
[11] K. F. Pun, I. K. Hui, W. G. Lewis and H. C. W. Lau, A
multi-criteria environmental impact assessment for the plastic
injection molding process: a methodology, Journal of Cleaner
Production. vol. 11, pp 41-49 (2003).
[12] A. P. Muroyama, M. Mani, K. Lyons and B. Johansson,
Simulation and Analysis for Sustainability in Manufacturing
Processes, NISTIR 7790, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, (2011).
[13] A. Kanungo and E. Swan, All electric injection molding
machines: How much energy can you save?, in Proceedings of
the 13th Industrial Energy technology Conference, New
Orleans, LA (2008).
[14] F. Qureshi, W. Li, S. Kara and C. Herrmann, Unit Process
Energy Consumption Models for Material Addition Processes:
A case of the Injection Molding Process, in 19th CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Berkeley
(2012).
[15] I. Ribeiro, P. Pecas and E. Henriques, Assessment of
Energy Consumption in Injection Moulding Process, in 19th
CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering,
Berkeley (2012).
[16] A. Weissman, A. Ananthanarayanan, S. K. Gupta and R. D.
Sriram, A systematic methodology for accurate design-stage
estimation of energy consumption for injection molded parts, in
Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design
Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and
Information Science in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE
2010, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2010).
[17] D. Kalla, J. Twomey and M. Overcash, Injection Molding
Process: Unit Process Life Cycle Inventory, MC 2, Wichita
State University, (2009).
[18] K. Kellens, W. Dewulf, M. Overcash, M. Z. Hauschild and
J. R. Duflou, Methodology for systematic analysis and
improvement of manufacturing unit process life-cycle
inventory (UPLCI)-CO2PE! initiative (cooperative effort on
process emissions in manufacturing). Part 1: Methodology
Description, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
vol. 17 (11), 69-78 (2011).
[19] F. Johannaber, Injection Moulding Machines, Hanser
Publications, Munich, Germany (2007).
[20] G. Boothroyd, P. Dewhurst and W. A. Knight, Product
design for manufacture and assembly, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca
Raton (2011).
[21] Toshiba Machine, Toshiba Inc., USA [Web page]:
http://www.toshiba-
machine.com/IMProductDetails.aspx?dept=1&machine_id=182
[accessed 8/12/12].
[22] D. V. R. Dominick V. Rosato, Marlene G. Rosato, Injection
molding handbook, Kluver Academic Publishers, Norwell,
Massachusetts, USA (2000).
[23] J. Vlachopoulos and D. Strutt, Polymer processing:
Materials Science and Technology. 1161-1169 (2003).
[24] COPs, EERs, and SEERs: How Efficient is Your Air
Conditioning System?, [Web page]:
http://www.powerknot.com/how-efficient-is-your-air-
conditioning-system.html. [accessed Nov. 7, 2012].
[25] J. Mattis, P. Sheng, W. DiScipio and K. Leong, A
framework for analyzing energy efficient injection-molding die
design, Berkeley (1996).
[26] C. Strumitto, P. L. Jones and R. Zytta, Energy aspects in
drying, in: Handbook of industrial drying, A. S. Majumdar,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA (2007).
[27] D. M. Brycee, Plastic Injection Molding, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI (1996).
[28] Blending and Dosing, Plastics Technology [Web page]:
http://www.ptonline.com/knowledgecenter/blending/blending-
basics/how-blenders-work. [accessed 11/15/12].
[29] J. Wortberg and T. Kamps, Hydraulics and all-electric
injection molding machines in practice, Plast Europe. 7, p. 12-
15 (2002).

Supplementary resource (1)

... 2.3. Injection pressure refers to the pressure exerted on the melt in front of the screw tip during the injection stage [57]. Shot volume for a cavity is the amount of molten polymer required to fill the mold cavity in each cycle [57]. ...
... Injection pressure refers to the pressure exerted on the melt in front of the screw tip during the injection stage [57]. Shot volume for a cavity is the amount of molten polymer required to fill the mold cavity in each cycle [57]. Note that, in the sequential process of the injection molding cycle, the ejection subsystem is actuated following the end of cooling time (t cool ); this relationship between the heat-transfer subsystem and the ejection subsystem is indicated with a horizontal arrow in Fig. 6. ...
... On the other hand, the determination of the shot volume that can be injected by the injection molding system, within the existing clamping capacity, depends on the magnitude of injection pressure, as shown in Eq. (3) [57]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Even a slight reduction in production cost can make a huge impact in a mass manufacturing domain like injection molding. In this paper, we proposed design modifications to the conventional multi-cavity injection mold insert for the reduction of overall mold material costs required for molding a part family. Additionally, the reduced size of the proposed insert makes it more suitable to manufacture it using metal additive manufacturing and exploit the associated benefits. We also provided formulations to minimize cycle time and pressure drop of the melt simultaneously in the modified design using integrated multi-objective optimization and multidisciplinary design optimization framework. The proposed flexible multi-cavity-inserts are designed to mold multiple part family members whose geometric dimensions are allowed to vary within a permissible limit. Hence, there exists uncertainty in the input variables. Two approaches: robustness-based design optimization and reliability-based design optimization are used to handle the uncertainty in the input variables. A case study is presented to numerically illustrate the implementation of the proposed optimization frameworks. Our formulations provide Pareto optimal design options for the flexible multi-cavity-insert that will open opportunities to produce small plastic parts having dimensional similarity economically.
... Moreover, Ma et al. (2019) conduct a life cycle assessment of carbon emissions in China's cement packaging, highlighting the importance of sustainable practices in manufacturing operations, a principle that resonates with the SMED methodology's focus on reducing waste and optimizing resource utilization for improved production efficiency (Ma et al., 2019). Additionally, Madan et al. (2013) characterize the energy consumption of the injection molding process, emphasizing the significance of assessing and optimizing energy usage in manufacturing processes to enhance sustainability and operational efficiency, principles that can be integrated into the SMED methodology for improving production practices in paper bag manufacturing (Madan et al., 2013). ...
... Moreover, Ma et al. (2019) conduct a life cycle assessment of carbon emissions in China's cement packaging, highlighting the importance of sustainable practices in manufacturing operations, a principle that resonates with the SMED methodology's focus on reducing waste and optimizing resource utilization for improved production efficiency (Ma et al., 2019). Additionally, Madan et al. (2013) characterize the energy consumption of the injection molding process, emphasizing the significance of assessing and optimizing energy usage in manufacturing processes to enhance sustainability and operational efficiency, principles that can be integrated into the SMED methodology for improving production practices in paper bag manufacturing (Madan et al., 2013). ...
... Another critical research topic in the injection-molding industry is efficient energy usage. The guideline for characterizing the energy consumption around the injection molding process consists of five steps [13]. Under these guidelines, we can estimate a variety of injection molding manufacturing processes and products by considering the theoretical minimum energy that was computed with part design and process planning. ...
... This implies that the random forest is derived from ensemble sampling without replacement from part of the dataset [37]. The remaining data are called out-of-bag and are used to evaluate the model performance [13]. Most boosting or bagging algorithms are based on decision trees [38]. ...
Article
Full-text available
With sustainable growth highlighted as a key to success in Industry 4.0, manufacturing companies attempt to optimize production efficiency. In this study, we investigated whether machine learning has explanatory power for quality prediction problems in the injection molding industry. One concern in the injection molding industry is how to predict, and what affects, the quality of the molding products. While this is a large concern, prior studies have not yet examined such issues especially using machine learning techniques. The objective of this article, therefore, is to utilize several machine learning algorithms to test and compare their performances in quality prediction. Using several machine learning algorithms such as tree-based algorithms, regression-based algorithms, and autoencoder, we confirmed that machine learning models capture the complex relationship and that autoencoder outperforms comparing accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Feature importance tests also revealed that temperature and time are influential factors that affect the quality. These findings have strong implications for enhancing sustainability in the injection molding industry. Sustainable management in Industry 4.0 requires adapting artificial intelligence techniques. In this manner, this article may be helpful for businesses that are considering the significance of machine learning algorithms in their manufacturing processes.
... In fact, replacing aluminum alloy with FRPs may bring several advantages from both technical and economic points of view. Even though the cost of raw materials is less advantageous for FRPs rather than aluminum alloys, the production of plastic components is based on processes such as injection molding that could be lower energy-demanding through a proper selection of processing parameters [14]. In the case of mass production, the lower temperatures required to molten plastic materials and the less severe working conditions could result in a cost saving of about 50 % for each plastic cover produced. ...
Article
The substitution of metals with fiber-reinforced polymers represents a well-established practice in the automotive and aerospace industries, driven by advantages such as cost reduction, weight savings, and environmental benefits. In the marine engineering sector, there is a growing interest in this metal replacement trend, particularly for non-structural components of marine engines that can be produced by adopting proper fiber-reinforced thermoplastic polymers. However, evaluating the suitability of such materials for marine applications necessitates a thorough understanding of their creep behavior, given the demanding operational environments and strict safety standards. The material selection process must intricately consider the material's susceptibility to creep through tailored material design methodologies. Moreover, redesign activities should aim to leverage the material's creep-resistant properties while ensuring adequate strength and simplifying installation procedures. Unfortunately, unlike the automotive industry, testing innovative plastic components in real environments on working engines is quite impossible. Neither engine manufacturers nor owners would allow jeopardizing their machinery by installing technologies not yet certified in a delicate environment such as a ship's engine room. In this context, finite element simulations offer a valuable tool to assess the material's creep performance and validate the proposed design when experimental measurements cannot be performed, hence predicting the component behavior over its intended lifetime. This study aims to exploit finite element analysis to evaluate the creep behavior and suitability for marine engine applications of a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material, focusing on a camshaft cover of a four-stroke marine engine currently manufactured from aluminum alloy. Through numerical simulations, a commercial 30 % wt GFs/PA6,6 thermoplastic composite emerges as a promising candidate, demonstrating adequate creep resistance while significantly reducing weight, processing costs, and energy consumption. The results obtained from the present study lay the foundations for the adoption of such material-based technology also in the marine engine sector despite the difficulties coming from the peculiarities of this industry.
... According to the three different scenarios, the parameters of processing related to the energy demand, scrap rate and production volume per system configuration are adapted in the simulation model. Studies have shown that the specific energy demand (in literature also specific energy consumption) is influenced by the product geometry and the selected production machines [23]. The scenarios are analyzed regarding the parameters of recycling rate and amount of overproduction. ...
Article
Full-text available
Traditional centralized industrial mass-production systems facilitate the efficient use of resources such as time, labor and materials by making use of scale effects. However, centralized production systems can also lead to an increase in resource demands, e.g. due to overproduction of consumer goods. Therefore, decentralized production systems are increasingly receiving attention, especially in densely populated urban areas. Advantages can be the usage of locally sourced materials to substitute virgin raw materials, the proximity to customers and the targeted manufacturing of products according to the customers’ needs. But these approaches are in turn in conflict with scale effects. The question arises whether and how decentralized manufacturing systems can compensate for their expected efficiency disadvantages. This work examines relevant parameters of these manufacturing systems for various composures to identify favorable scenarios. The material and energy intensity of a production system for an exemplary case of an eyewear manufacturing system are investigated and analyzed by using a simulation approach.
... However, the wide application of equipment upgrading is costprohibitive for the majority of small enterprises. In contrast, optimizing process parameter settings is a relatively more practical and feasible way towards quality assurance and energy conservation (Madan et al. 2013; Kashyap and Datta 2015;Selvaraj et al. 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The high energy intensity and rigorous quality demand of injection molding have received significant interest under the background of the soaring production of global plastic industry. As multiple parts can be produced in a multi-cavity mold during one operation cycle, the weight differences of these parts have been demonstrated to reflect their quality performance. In this regard, this study incorporated this fact and developed a generative machine learning-based multi-objective optimization model. Such model can predict the qualification of parts produced under different processing variables and further optimize processing variables of injection molding for minimal energy consumption and weight difference amongst parts in one cycle. Statistical assessment via F1-score and R² was performed to evaluate the performance of the algorithm. In addition, to validate the effectiveness of our model, we conducted physical experiments to measure the energy profile and weight difference under varying parameter settings. Permutation-based mean square error reduction was adopted to specify the importance of parameters affecting energy consumption and quality of injection molded parts. Optimization results indicated that the processing parameters optimization could reduce ~ 8% energy consumption and ~ 2% weight difference compared with the average operation practices. Maximum speed and first-stage speed were identified as the dominating factors affecting quality performance and energy consumption, respectively. This study could contribute to the quality assurance of injection molded parts and facilitate energy efficient and sustainable plastic manufacturing.
... The goal was to convert the generic datasets for the processes under study into the EcoSpold data format to enable worldwide LCI data exchange. Such process-based approaches to sustainability metric quantification have been explored for application in various manufacturing processes (e.g., steelmaking and sand casting [98,99], die casting [100,101], injection molding [102,103,53,104], machining and grinding [105,106,107], sheet metal forming [108,109], induction hardening [110], and sintering [111]) and for analysis of manufacturing systems [112,113,114]. ...
Article
Full-text available
To understand the past successes and future opportunities for applying Industry 4.0 technologies towards manufacturing sustainability assessment, this state-of-the-art review examines previous literature at the intersection of these domains. Specifically, we focus on the application of Industry 4.0 technologies in the context of the following stages in manufacturing sustainability assessment: (1) planning, infrastructure development, and problem definition (2) performance measurement, (3) results interpretation and decision-making, as well as (4) intervention, control, and validation strategies. Based on this literature review, we present the trends, benefits, research gaps, and required future work for holistically integrating the aforementioned research domains. To accompany this literature review, we performed a meta-analysis of 14,498 articles and compared them to 316 articles compiled for a focused literature search. Based on database-controlled keywords, networks representing keyword co-occurrences were constructed to reveal clusters of related terms and evaluate overall term centrality (i.e., importance). The results of the analysis uncover strikingly similar topologies of the two datasets, yet reveal Industry 4.0-related opportunities for manufacturing sustainability assessment, i.e., clusters of keywords that were more central to the large collection than the targeted search. Open areas of research include automation, robotics, and advanced inspection technologies. Additional investigation is warranted for determining whether the incorporation of such methods (1) facilitate more robust and accessible manufacturing sustainability assessment or (2) make the manufacturing system itself more sustainable.
... The literature is vast in the analysis and optimization of injection molding parameters and how these affect the injected parts' microstructure and mechanical properties [6,8,9]. Within the scope of sustainable production, different works focused on environmentally friendly materials, minimum energy consumption, raw material savings, recycling chances and cycle time reduction [10][11][12], leading to an increase of process efficiency and overall competitiveness. ...
Article
Full-text available
Thermoplastic injection is currently employed in different industrial fields. This process has significantly evolved over the years, and injection machine manufacturers are continuously forced to innovate, to improve the energetic efficiency, aiming to reduce costs, improve competitiveness, and promote environmental sustainability. This work focuses on the development of a novel, profitable, and environmentally friendly plastic over-injection equipment of small metallic parts for the automotive industry, to be applied in a bowden cable production line, to cover the zamak terminations with plastic, or produce terminations entirely made of plastic. The work is based on an over-sized existing solution. The operating parameters required for the work are quantified, and all machine parts are designed separately to achieve the required functionality. Known approaches are finally used to perform the cost analysis, calculate the return on investment (ROI), and energetic efficiency, to substantiate the replacement of the current solution. The new equipment was able to increase the energetic efficiency of the current assembly line while keeping the required injection rates. An efficient and sustainable solution was presented, with a ROI of 1.2 years over the current solution. The proposed design is also applicable to different automated production lines that require this technology. Nowadays, this concept can be extended to all fields of industry that employ injection molding in their processes, enabling to integrate new manufacturing systems, and increasing energetic efficiency while reducing production costs.
Article
Full-text available
Today's ubiquitous use of plastics in product design and manufacturing presents significant environmental and human health challenges. Injection molding, one of the most commonly used processes for making plastic products, consumes a significant amount of energy. A methodology for accurately estimating the energy consumed to injection-mold a part would enable environmentally conscious decision making during the product design. Unfortunately, only limited information is available at the design stage. Therefore, accurately estimating energy consumption before the part has gone into production can be challenging. In this paper, we describe a methodology for energy estimation that works with the limited amount of data available during the design stage, namely the CAD model of the part, the material name, and the production requirements. This methodology uses this data to estimate the parameters of the runner system and an appropriately sized molding machine. It then uses these estimates to compute the machine setup time and the cycle time required for the injection molding operation. This is done by appropriately abstracting information available from the mold flow simulation tools and analytical models that are traditionally used during the manufacturing stage. These times are then multiplied by the power consumed by the appropriately sized machine during each stage of the molding cycle to compute the estimated energy consumption per part.
Article
The development in metering strokes has resulted in a series of problems for processors. These include: melt inhomogeneities; long metering times; streaking in mouldings. Actions for improving the screw's function are presented. Recommendations are also given for choosing the metering stroke.
Book
Preface. 1. The Complete Injection Molding Process. 2. Injection Molding Machine. 3. Plasticizing. 4. Molds to Products. 5. Fundamentals of Designing Products. 6. Molding Materials. 7. Process Control. 8. Design Features that Influence Product Performances. 9. Computer Operations. 10. Auxiliary Equipment and Secondary Operations. 11. Troubleshooting and Maintenance. 12. Testing, Inspection, and Quality Control. 13. Statistical Process Control and Quality Control. 14. Costing, Economics, Management. 15. Specialized Injection Molding Processes. 16. Injection Molding Competitive. 17. Summary. Appendices. References.
Article
This paper deals with a multi-objective parameter optimization framework for energy saving in injection molding process. It combines an experimental design by Taguchi’s method, a process analysis by analysis of variance (ANOVA), a process modeling algorithm by artificial neural network (ANN), and a multi-objective parameter optimization algorithm by genetic algorithm (GA)-based lexicographic method. Local and global Pareto analyses show the trade-off between product quality and energy consumption. The implementation of the proposed framework can reduce the energy consumption significantly in laboratory scale tests, and at the same time, the product quality can meet the pre-determined requirements.
Chapter
Energy efficiency has become a critical concern for manufacturing industries due to increased energy cost and associated environmental impact. A reliable prediction of unit process energy consumption will enable manufacturers to develop energy-saving strategies during product-design, process-planning as well as during production stages. However, energy consumption models for material addition processes are currently absent. This paper presents an empirical approach to characterize the relationship between energy consumption and process variables. This methodology has been tested and validated for an injection molding machine. The model presented predicts the energy consumption of manufacturing processes with an accuracy of more than 90%.
Article
The manufacturing of a product is connected directly to the amount of carbon emitted in producing electrical energy for that manufacturing process. A new, simple Carbon Emission Signature, CES™, is proposed. Knowing the CES for a power grid and the energy needed to make a part, the carbon emitted can be found. Examples of single point turning and open die forging are given. Knowing the total carbon emitted for a product, a manufacturer can place a Green House Gas (GHG) label on each product. A customer can then see the amount of Green House Gas emitted in making the product.