Engineering with Computers (2006) 21: 193–202
DOI 10.1007/s00366-005-0004-8
O R I GI N A L A R T IC L E
Y. C. Lam Æ Y. M. Deng Æ C. K. Au
A GA/gradient hybrid approach for injection moulding conditions
optimisation
Received: 3 March 2004 / Accepted: 9 February 2005 / Published online: 22 March 2006

Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006
Abstract Injection moulding conditions such as melt
temperature, mould temperature and injection time are
important process parameters. Optimisation of these
parameters involve complex patterns of local minima,
which makes it very suited for Genetic Algorithm (GA).
However, once a minimal region is identified during the
search process, the GA method is not efficient, even
sometimes impossible, in reaching its minimum. This is
because GA is opportunistic not deterministic. The
crossover and mutation operation may lead the search
out of the identified minimal region. Gradient methods,
on the other hand, are very efficient in this regard and
can guarantee a local minimum, but not a global one. In
this paper, a strategy of using a hybrid of both methods
in injection moulding conditions optimisation is pro-
posed, so as to exploit their respective advantages. The
hybrid optimisation process is elaborated and a case
study is conducted to test the effectiveness and efficiency
of the strategy and its implementation algorithm. The
optimisation results from the hybrid approach are
compared with those from the GA method alone to
demonstrate the improvement.
Keywords Genetic Algorithm Æ Gradient method Æ
Injection moulding conditions Æ Optimisation
1 Introduction
The main concern in injection moulding is to produce
plastic parts of the desired quality. Important part
quality includes mechanical characteristics, dimensional
conformity and appearance [1]. The major factors
affecting part quality are polymer properties, mould
design and moulding conditions. Moulding condition
Y. C. Lam Æ Y. M. Deng Æ C. K. Au (&)
School of Mechanical and Production Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University,
50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, 639798, Singapore
E-mail: mckau@ntu.edu.sg
includes melt temperature, mould temperature and the
injection time. Determination of the moulding condi-
tion, which is important to control the part quality, re-
lies traditionally on the skill of the moulding operator.
The decision is based on the ad hoc use of knowledge
and experience accumulated over the years. In order to
meet the high quality requirements in the injection
moulding industry, a more systematic and scientific ap-
proach is required to determine the moulding condition
for optimal part quality.
Several numerical simulation studies had been carried
out for determining the moulding condition with the
numerical optimisation algorithms. Numerical simula-
tion is used as a process model to obtain the gradient
information which is useful in optimising the moulding
condition. Two major approaches are employed: gradi-
ent-based method and direct search method. The gradi-
ent information is obtained either by a local
approximation using the forward finite difference meth-
od [2] or by a global approximation using designed
experiment [3]. A direct search algorithm—the modified
complex method [4] is used in order to save the numerical
experimentation for obtaining the gradient information.
Artificial intelligence techniques are also applied to
determine the moulding condition. The heuristic
knowledge and the experience of moulding personnel
form a main source of information for determining the
moulding condition. Several systems are developed
based on the rule-based approach [5, 6] to provide
solutions to moulding problems. Some recently devel-
oped systems are based on the case-based approach [7, 8]
to assist in setting the moulding conditions.
Genetic Algorithm (GA) based methods [9, 10] are
also proposed to address the problem of moulding con-
dition optimisation. However, the GA method is ineffi-
cient and sometimes it is almost impossible to reach the
optimum due to its non-deterministic characteristic. The
crossover and mutation operation may lead the search
out of the identified minimal region. Gradient methods,
on the other hand, are very efficient in this regard and can
guarantee a local minimum, but not a global one.
194
In this paper, a strategy of using a hybrid of both
methods in injection moulding optimisation is proposed,
so as to exploit their respective advantages.
2 Optimisation
A constrained optimisation problem is formulated as
follows:
optimise UðxÞ such that 8x 2 Rn subject to x 2 S
Rn
where U(x) is an objective function; x is a set of
parameters; S is the search space.
In the case of injection moulding, the objective
function U(x) is a measure of the part quality, x is the
moulding condition in the search space S.
2.1 Objective function
The quality of a plastic part is determined by measuring
their warpage, shrinkage, dimensional stability and
mechanical strength. These components rely on the
moulding conditions. An objective function is used to
quantify the part quality. The value of this objective
function varies with the moulding conditions. The
common factors that affect the quality of a part are
listed:
• Maximum cavity pressure (MPa);
• Maximum shear stress (MPa);
• Maximum shear rate (1/s);
• Maximum flow front temperature (C);
• Minimum flow front temperature (C);
• Maximum end-of-fill temperature (C);
• Minimum end-of-fill temperature (C);
• Maximum cooling time (s);
• Minimum cooling time (s);
• Actual injection time (s);
• Maximum volumetric shrinkage (%);
• Minimum volumetric shrinkage (%);
• Maximum clamp tonnage (tonnes).
These factors constitute the part quality and can be used
to measure the part quality. Other factors can be as
objective function. Common examples are:
• Cooling time;
• End-of-fill temperature;
• Volumetric shrinkage;
• Warpage;
• Filling time at extremities;
• Uniform pressure at extremities.
To optimise the part quality is equivalent to that of
maximising the uniformity of these factors.
Definition 1 The feasible moulding conditions should
satisfy the following three requirements [11]:
• The maximum shear stress should be less than the
material allowed;
• The maximum shear rate should be less than the
material allowed;
• The minimum flow front temperature should be
greater than the melt temperature minus 20C (i.e. not
more than 20C below the melt temperature).
There might also be other additional requirements:
• Problem-specific requirements, such as shear stress
where the snap fit or screw hole is located.
Objective function can also be defined as the weighed
sum of several sub-functions.
Definition 2 A weighted minimum objective function
[12] is defined by normalising each sub-function by their
ranges of variation.
Then the weighted minimum objective function
Uj (" j 2[1,m]) can be expressed as:
X
i¼1n
vi;j  vi;min
Uj ¼ xij ; ð1Þ
vi;max  vi;min
where n is the number of n individual sub-functions; m
is the number of feasible moulding conditions; vi,j ("
i 2[1,n] and " j 2[1,m]) is the value of each sub-function
for each of the feasible moulding conditions x; x i ("
i 2[1,n]) is the weighting factor corresponding to each
sub-function; vimin and vimax(" i 2[1,n]) are the end
maximum values of each sub-function.
The value of this objective function varies from 0 to
1. Hence, the fitness function Fj (j=1,2,...,m) for the
Genetic Algorithm can be expressed as:
Fj ¼ 1  Uj : ð2Þ
2.2 Search space
The optimisation search space is a space of feasible
solutions, which is represented by the ranges of the
components of parameter x representing the moulding
conditions. In the filling stage, the important moulding
conditions are mould temperature, melt temperature and
the injection time. The operation ranges of mould tem-
perature and melt temperature are limited by melt
properties. For a specific plastic material, there is a
recommended melt temperature range and mould tem-
perature range. The injection time range is determined
by two factors:
1. Feasible injection time range This is the range of
filling time together with the melt temperature and mould
temperature constituting the feasible moulding condi-
tion. This is a closed range with upper and lower limits.
Let xabc ¼ ðTm;a ; TM;b ; tab;c Þ 2 R3 be a set of moulding
condition with the melt temperature Tm;a and mould
temperature TM;b and injection time tab,c for a specific
material. The subscripts a 2[0, 1], b 2[0,1] and c 2[0,1]
refer to the minimum value (when a=0, b=0, c=0) and
the maximum value (when a=1, b=1, c=1).

Definition 3 Tm;a ð8a ¼ f0; 1gÞ and Tm;a ð8a ¼ f0; 1gÞ
are termed boundary melt/mould temperature since they
are the melt and mould temperature at the vertices of the
space [Tm,0, Tm,1] · [TM,0, TM,1 ].
Assumption For a specific material, there is a bi-linear
function between the melt temperature, the mould tem-
perature and the injection time.
Hence,
8Tm;a 2 ½Tm;0 ; Tm;1  and 8TM;a 2 ½TM;0 ; TM;1 
9tab;c 2 ½tab;0 ; tab;1  such that
ð3Þ
tab;c ¼ ð1  aÞð1  bÞt00;c þ ð1  bÞat10c
þ bð1  aÞt01c þ abt11c 8c ¼ 0; 1;
where
Tm;a  Tm;0 TM;b  TM;0
a¼ ; b¼ :
Tm;1  Tm;0 TM;1  TM;0
Definition 4 [tab,0, tab,1] (" a={0,1} and " b={0,1}) is
termed boundary injection time range since it is the
injection time range at the vertices of the space [Tm,0,
Tm,1] · [TM,0, TM,1 ].
The injection time range is shown in Fig. 1.
2. Machine capacity The injection time should be short
to increase the production rate. However, it is also
limited by the machine capacity. Figure 2 shows a U-
shape relationship between maximum injection pressure
and injection time. Higher maximum injection pressure
is required for short filling time. As the injection time
increases, the maximum injection pressure will drop and
less frictional heat is generated which also decreases the
viscosity of the melt. As a result, a higher maximum
injection pressure is required to drive the melt to flow.
The injection time with the lowest maximum injection
pressure will be used as the upper bound. Hence, the
injection time should be
tp;0  t  tp;1 ; ð4Þ
Fig. 1 Illustration of injection time ranges
195
Fig. 2 Maximum injection pressure versus injection time
where tp,0 is the injection time with the largest maximum
injection pressure and; tp,1 is the injection time with the
least maximum injection pressure.
Definition 5 The search space S is defined as


S ¼ xabc j8Tm;a 2 ½Tm;0 ; Tm;1 ; 8TM;a 2 ½TM;0 ; TM;1 ;
8tab;ac 2 ½maxðtab;0 ; tp;0 Þ; minðtab;1 ; tp;1 Þg:
With these considerations, the boundary injection time
range is determined by a search process. The process
examines each boundary injection time tab,c (" a 2{0,1},
" b 2{0,1} and " c 2{0,1}) from a minimal value
( £ tab,0 " a 2{0,1} and " b 2{0,1}), which corresponds
to the maximum injection velocity the moulding machine
can deliver. The minimum value ( £ tab,0, " a 2{0,1} and
" b 2{0,1}), step value and maximum value (‡ tab,1, " a
2{0,1} and " b 2{0,1}), are pre-specified. The lower
bound of the range is the first feasible injection time (tab,0,
" a 2{0,1} and " b 2{0,1}). After that, the cavity pres-
sures corresponding to each of the succeeding injection
times are examined. The upper bound of the range is the
injection time tp,1 that corresponds to the least maximum
cavity pressure. If, however, before reaching this upper
bound, the injection times have already became nonfea-
sible, then the last feasible injection time tab,1 (" a 2{0,1}
and " b 2{0,1}) will be taken as the upper bound.
The examination of each injection time is accom-
plished by executing a flow simulation, with the current
injection time and the corresponding boundary melt/
mould temperature being specified as the processing
conditions. The simulation results are then used to ex-
tract the relevant data, such as maximum shear stress,
maximum shear rate, minimum flow front temperature
and maximum cavity pressure. They are then used to
verify whether the injection time is in the search space.
Figure 3 illustrates the flowchart of the search pro-
cess for boundary injection time ranges and the calcu-
lation of an arbitrary injection time range. The process
starts from specifying the necessary information, such as
part geometric model, material, boundary conditions,
and processing conditions, where the injection time is
196
Fig. 3 Flowchart of injection time range determination
one parameter of the processing conditions, which varies
in a step-wise manner within the specified search range.
For verification of feasible injection times, problem-
specific requirements, if any, should be specified. There
is no need to specify the other three requirements as they
apply to all situations.
During the optimisation process, the four boundary
injection time ranges are determined first. The arbitrary
injection time ranges are calculated only when required.
This will be elaborated in Sect. 3.
3 Hybrid optimisation strategy and algorithm
3.1 GA/gradient hybrid strategy
Genetic Algorithm is an evolutionary computing
strategy and is probabilistic in nature [13]. It starts with
a set of solutions, represented by chromosomes, called
population. The population is evaluated according to
the fitness function determined by the pre-defined
objective function, from which new solutions are taken
to form a new population. A number of GA operations
are used for generating the new population, including
selection, crossover and mutation. This new population
will then be used for another round of new population
production. The evolutionary process continues until
the pre-specified convergence criteria have been
reached.
Contrary to GA methods, gradient methods are
deterministic. The searches for a minimum from a
starting point in the search space by taking the direction
of steepest slope. Hence, the effectiveness and efficiency
of the method is very much determined by the selection
of the starting point.
In this paper, a sub-set of the overall search space is
defined where there is only one local minimum as a local
minimum region. The local minimum region, whose
minimum corresponds to the lowest minimum of the
overall search space, is referred to as the lowest minimum
region. With these definitions, the overall search space
consists of a number of local minimum regions. Identi-
fying the lowest minimum region, i.e. a point within the
lowest minimum region, will be essential for the gradient
method to be successful.
For the optimisation of injection moulding condi-
tions, each solution consists of three parameters,
namely, melt temperature, mould temperature and
injection time. Due to the complex patterns of local
minima in the objective function as against the moulding
conditions, firstly, GA method is used to identify the
lowest minimum region. Subsequently, gradient method
is used to search for the minimum within the identified
region.
However, GA method cannot guarantee that the
derived minimum result corresponds to the global min-
imal region, nor can it guarantee that the result is the
minimum in this region. This is a direct result of the
randomisation techniques used by the GA method.
Hence, the last generation of GA algorithm is often
taken as a collective output, so that human interpreta-
tion may be applied to get the best from the output.
 197

To avoid human interference, a number of elite for each of the specified quality measuring criteria, cal-
solutions from all generations of GA search results is culating weighted objective function and fitness func-
selected, hoping that one of the selected solutions is tion. After all the GA operations, the new chromosomes
within the global minimal region. These elite solutions are decoded to derive the respective new solutions for
correspond to those that have a relatively smaller the new population. These new solutions should then be
objective function value than those not selected. verified to ensure that they are within the search space. If
It should be noted that even this strategy cannot any solution is invalid, then the GA operations should
guarantee that the lowest minimum region can definitely be applied again.
be selected. A trade-off between efficiency and precision The above process is iterated until a convergence
also exists: if more elite solutions are selected, then there criterion is met. In this paper, only the commonly used
will be a higher chance of finding the lowest minimum generation size is used as the convergence criterion, so as
region; however, more computation will be required. to test the influence of different generation sizes to the
Nevertheless, it provides a further means to improving improvement of hybrid optimisation results over sole
the optimisation result from the GA search alone. Be- GA results. By selecting from among all solutions from
sides, in this strategy, GA search is not used to derive an all generations of the search process, a number of elite
optimum, but rather to derive starting points for the ones are then taken out for the gradient method to be
subsequent gradient searches. Hence, the generation size discussed below. Figure 4 illustrates the elaborated GA
is made smaller than when only sole GA searching is search process.
used.
Once the starting points, that is, the selected elite
solutions, are determined, gradient searches can be ap-
plied. The following two situations may be possible:
• Starting from one selected elite solution, no new
optimum can be found. This shows that the solution
from GA method is already the minimum within its
corresponding local minimum region.
• Starting from one selected elite solution, the gradient
search process passes through another selected elite
solution. This shows that these two elite solutions are
actually within the same local minimum region.
Hence, there is no need to conduct gradient search for
those selected elite solutions that have been passed
through during the previous gradient search processes.

Apart from these two situations, each elite solution

will correspond to a local minimum. The lowest mini-
mum can then be determined by choosing the best
among the local minimums, with its corresponding
parameters being reported as the optimal moulding
conditions.

3.2 GA optimisation process

The initial population is randomly chosen from within

the search space. This is done by choosing pairs of melt
temperature and mould temperature first. Their corre-
sponding injection time ranges are calculated from the
boundary injection time ranges. The injection times are
then randomly chosen from within these ranges. A
binary encoded chromosome is used to represent each
solution within the population.
The standard GA operations can then be applied. For
the selection operation, the solutions in the old popu-
lation are evaluated first. The same evaluation method
used in searching for the boundary injection time ranges
is utilised, that is, executing the relevant Moldflow
simulation, extracting data from the simulation results Fig. 4 Flowchart of GA search in the hybrid optimisation process
198

3.3 Gradient optimisation process of xi+1

abc that gives the minimal objective function value
are repeated.
For each of the selected elite solutions, the gradient The above steps are repeated until the neighbours of
search process will generate a search path which follows the last identified solution all have higher objective
the steepest slope from the starting solution. Defining function value, that is, the search path has come to the
the ith solution (moulding conditions) in the search path local minimum.
as: After all the selected elites from the GA search pro-
cess have been examined, the optimal moulding condi-
xiabc ¼ ðTm;a TM;b tab;c Þi : tions can be reported, which correspond to the gradient
search result that gives the minimal objective function
Let U(xiabc) be the weighted minimum objective value. Figure 5 shows the flowchart of the elaborated
function at xiabc and DTm, DTM, Dtab,c be the search steps gradient search process.
of melt temperature, mould temperature and injection
time respectively:
Definition 6 The neighbour of xiabc in the search space
is defined as
2 3
DTm
nj ðxiabc Þ ¼ xiabc þ ½ km kM kt j 4 DTM 5;
Dtab;c
where km, kM, kt 2(1,0,1}.
However, km, kM, kt cannot be all 0 simultaneously
because this corresponds to nj (xiabc)=xiabc. Hence, there
are 3·3·3–1=26 neighbours, that is, j=1,2,...,26 for
definition (6).
The next solution (xi+1
abc ) in the search path must be
one of neighbours xiabc, whose corresponding objective
function gives the minimum value (thus the search
direction follows the steepest slope), and this value is
smaller than U(xiabc), that is,
xiþ1 i
abc 2 fnj ðxabc Þj8j
¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 26g such that minfUðnj xiabc Þg\Uðxiabc Þ:
ð5Þ
If, min {U(nj xiabc)}
> U(xiabc),
then it means that
xiabc is already the local minimum, the gradient search
process should be stopped.
To expedite the search process, the gradient search
process is adapted. Once the next solution is identified,
this step is repeated to get the next solution, and one of
its neighbours which is along the last search direction
will be. For example, if in the previous step, it was
found:
2 3
DTm
nj ðxiþ1 i 4 5
abc Þ ¼ xabc þ ½ 1 0 1 j DTM ;
Dtab;c
then, just simply examine the following neighbour of
xi+1
abc :
2 3
DTm
nj ðxiþ2 iþ1 4 5
abc Þ ¼ xabc þ ½ 1 0 1 j DTM :
Dtab;c
+1
If U(nj xiabc) < U(xiabc ), then xi+2 i+1
abc =nj (xabc ) and repeat
this step until this condition is not satisfied any further. Fig. 5 Flowchart of Gradient search in the hybrid optimisation
Otherwise, the previous steps to search for the neighbour process

4 Case study
To demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the
presented hybrid optimisation strategy and its imple-
mentation algorithm, this section presents a case study.
This is an office tray, as is shown in Fig. 6. The gate
location was specified at the middle of an edge on the
outer surface of the tray, as is indicated in the figure. The
approximate size of the part is also illustrated in the
figure.
The moldflow plastic insight (MPI) 1.1 is used as the
CAE simulation tool. The part material is specified as a
polypropylene (PP) manufactured by Amoco Polymers
Inc., whose trade name is 10–1246 [AMOCO: AM800].
Assume that the designers have specified the following
two criteria construction variables:
• v1 = Maximum shear stress (MPa),
• v2 = Maximum cooling time (s).
These two variables are used directly as the quality
measuring criteria. The maximum shear stress should be
minimised because high shear stress causes frictional
heat, overpacking, warpage, and so on. It should gen-
erally avoid exceeding the maximum recommended limit
for the material, to avoid possible failures in critical
areas of the part where they are subject to high struc-
tural stress when in use. Shear stress is related to both
pressure and temperature of the melt. From its relation
with melt temperature alone, shear stress may be re-
duced by using a high melt temperature. It is also af-
fected by mould temperature and injection time.
On the other hand, maximum cooling time should
also be minimised, so as to reduce the moulding cycle
time and to raise productivity. In a moldflow flow sim-
ulation, the cooling time is the additional time required
Fig. 6 An office tray for case study
199
after end of filling (filling analysis) or end of packing
(packing analysis) for the plastic to cool to the point
where the temperature of each laminate through the
element is below the ejection temperature for the mate-
rial being used [11]. Obviously, to reduce cooling time,
both melt temperature and mould temperature should
be set low, while injection time should be set long to
reduce frictional heat.
As can be seen, these two criteria are somewhat
conflicting. Hence, weighting factors must be specified
by the designer. Assume that in this case study, 0.6 is
assigned to the former criterion, while 0.4 is assigned to
the latter. The weighted objective function is then:
v1j  v1 min v2j  v2 min
Uj ¼ 0:6 þ 0:4
v1 max  V1 min v2 max  v2 min ð6Þ
ðj ¼ 1 to mÞ;
where m is the number of solutions, refer to Eq. 2 for a
clarification.
By retrieving from the Moldflow material database,
the following melt/mould temperature ranges are used as
part of the optimisation search space:
• Melt temperature range: 215–255C;
• Mould temperature range: 20–60C.
Following the method discussed in Sect. 2, the four
boundary injection time ranges can be determined by
using Moldflow simulation analyses, as listed below:
• At melt/mould temperature 215, 20C: 0.3–2.1 s;
• At melt/mould temperature 255, 20C: 0.1–3.5 s;
• At melt/mould temperature 215, 60C: 0.3–3.5 s;
• At melt/mould temperature 255, 60C: 0.1–5.3 s.
All the lower bounds of the boundary injection time
ranges listed above are determined by the shear stress
requirement. The upper bounds of the first three ranges
correspond to the minimum of cavity pressure, while
that of the last range is determined by the requirement
of flow front temperature. These boundary injection
time ranges, together with the melt temperature range
and mould temperature range, determine the search
space.
For the hybrid optimisation algorithm, we use a step
value of 1C for both melt temperature and mould
temperature, and a step value of 0.1 s for injection
time.
For the GA algorithm, we use a population size of 20,
a commonly used value. The GA operation parameters
also utilise the commonly used values, that is, the
crossover rate is set as 0.9, while the mutation rate is set
as 0.005. To demonstrate that the hybrid method can
improve optimisation results regardless of the genera-
tion size used for the GA method, we test the generation
size by using both 30 and 50. Further more, since GA is
probabilistic, we run the hybrid optimisation process 10
times using each of these generation sizes. That is, in
total 20 runs have been carried out.
200

For the gradient algorithm, we select 20 elites from
the GA search results in each run. Both the optimisation
results from the GA method and from the GA/gradient
hybrid method are then reported. Tables 1 and 2 com-
pare the GA and hybrid optimisation results between
these different runs. All CAE analyses were conducted
on a Pentium III computer. Note that the computing
time is primarily but not solely determined by the
number of CAE analyses.
5 Discussions
Table 3 compares the overall and average optimisation
results when two generation sizes are used. It shows that,
overall, the optimal melt temperature is high, which is
almost at the upper bound of the recommended melt
temperature range, while the optimal mould temperature
is almost at the lower bound of the recommended mould
temperature range. The optimal injection time is rela-
tively long, which is close to the upper bound of the
corresponding injection time range. This result tallies
with the two quality measuring criteria defined. An
intuitive explanation is that minimising maximum shear
stress requires a high melt temperature and low cavity
pressure, where a low cavity pressure is indicated by a
long injection time; while minimising maximum cooling
time requires a low mould temperature and long injec-
tion time. Although a low melt temperature may con-
tribute to lower cooling time, the weighting factor for
Table 1 Comparisons of hybrid method with GA method (generation size: 30)
cooling time requirement, i.e. 0.4, is smaller than that for
shear stress requirement, i.e. 0.6.
For both generation sizes, most of the runs from the
hybrid method have quality improvement than those
from GA method alone, which is averaged 2.97% for
generation size 30 and 2.5% for generation size 50. This
shows that even when a large generation size is used, the
hybrid method can still improve the optimisation results.
It also shows that the optimisation results from the
GA method vary due to its opportunistic nature, while
those from the hybrid method are all the same, that is,
for all 20 runs, the optimal melt temperature is always
250C, mould temperature is 21C, and injection time
is 3.4 s. This phenomenon is due to the deterministic
nature of the gradient method. However, since the
hybrid optimisation algorithm relies on the optimisa-
tion results from the GA method, there is no guarantee
that this phenomenon will occur for all optimisation
runs. That is to say, if more runs were conducted, it
could still be possible that the different optimal
moulding conditions are derived. Whatever it may be,
the case study did show that the GA/gradient hybrid
method has more stable optimisation results than the
sole GA method.
Furthermore, the optimisation results from the hy-
brid method when smaller generation size is used may
still be better than those from sole GA method when
larger generation size is used. Figure 7 shows two curves
of optimisation results versus run number. One of the
curves is the objective function value versus run number

Run GA or Optimum moulding conditions Quality measuring criteria, objective function and Computation
no. hybrid improvement

Melt Mould Injection (a) Maximum (b) Maximum Objective Improvement No. of Computing
temperature temperature time (s) shear stress cooling time function (%) CAE time
(C) (C) (MPa) (s) (weights: analyses
0.6 for
(a), 0.4
for (b))

1 GA 249 22 3.4 0.1081 14.15 0.149216 2.74 218 1 h 11 m 36 s

GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 389 2 h 8 m 58 s
2 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 200 1 h 6 m 52 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 389 2 h 8 m 26 s
3 GA 254 20 3.5 0.1075 14.2 0.149465 2.9 219 1 h 12 m 51 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 299 1 h 38 m 54 s
4 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 217 1 h 12 m 34 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 390 2 h 9 m 15 s
5 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 204 1 h 8 m 14 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 329 1 h 49 m 4 s
6 GA 254 20 3.5 0.1075 14.2 0.149465 2.9 187 1 h 2 m 37 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 287 1 h 35 m 15 s
7 GA 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 0 175 0 h 58 m 36 s
GA/gradient No new optimum found 311 1 h 43 m 13 s
8 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 177 0 h 59 m 24 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 346 1 h 54 m 52 s
9 GA 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 0 196 1 h 5 m 35 s
GA/gradient No new optimum found 270 1 h 30 m 2 s
10 GA 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 0 193 1 h 5 m 37 s
GA/gradient No new optimum found 378 2h6m9s
 201

Table 2 Comparisons of hybrid method with GA method (generation size: 50)

Run GA or Optimum moulding conditions Quality measuring criteria, objective function and Computation
no. hybrid improvement

Melt Mould Injection (a) Maximum (b) Maximum Objective Improvement No. of Computing
temperature temperature time (s) shear stress cooling time function (%) CAE time
(C) (C) (MPa) (s) (weights: analyses
0.6 for (a),
0.4 for (b))

1 GA 251 20 3.4 0.1093 14.05 0.148718 2.42 202 1 h 7 m 55 s

GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 288 1 h 36 m 42 s
2 GA 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 0 204 1 h 19 m 53 s
GA/gradient No new optimum found 312 2 h 0 m 41 s
3 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 211 1 h 23 m 16 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 381 2 h 28 m 14 s
4 GA 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 0 239 1 h 20 m 27 s
GA/gradient No new optimum found 334 1 h 51 m 22 s
5 GA 251 20 3.4 0.1093 14.05 0.148718 2.42 198 1 h 17 m 52 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 314 2 h 1 m 56 s
6 GA 252 20 3.4 0.1088 14.1 0.149316 2.81 265 1 h 44 m 14 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 358 2 h 19 m 31 s
7 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 179 1 h 9 m 19 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 361 2 h 18 m 24 s
8 GA 255 20 3.5 0.1069 14.25 0.149715 3.07 177 0 h 59 m 24 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 346 1 h 54 m 52 s
9 GA 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 0 196 1 h 5 m 35 s
GA/gradient No new optimum found 270 1 h 30 m 2 s
10 GA 251 21 3.4 0.1072 14.15 0. 146073 0.65 211 1 h 18 m 29 s
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 0.1076 14.1 0.145125 366 2 h 8 m 58 s

Table 3 Comparisons of overall and average results within a generation size

Generation GA or Optimum moulding conditions Comparisons

size hybrid
Overall melt Overall mould Overall Average number Average quality
temperature (C) temperature (C) injection time (s) of CAE analyses improvement
for improved runs (%)

30 GA 249–255 20–22 3.4–3.5 199 2.97

GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 339
50 GA 250–255 20–21 3.4–3.5 208 2.5
GA/gradient 250 21 3.4 333

from the hybrid optimisation results when generation

size is 30 (their objective function values are the same for
the conducted 10 runs); the other is that from the GA
optimisation results when generation size is 50. As can
be seen, for most of the runs, the objective function
values from the hybrid method are smaller than (thus
quality higher than) those from the GA method, al-
though the former method uses smaller generation size
than the latter.

6 Conclusions

In the previous sections, a GA/gradient hybrid approach

for injection moulding conditions optimisation has been Fig. 7 Hybrid optimisation results at smaller generation size as
presented. Although GA method is very suitable for compared with GA results at larger generation size
202
moulding conditions optimisation, it is not efficient and
sometimes ineffective in searching for the minimum
solution within an identified minimum region. This
deficiency can be easily compensated for by using a
gradient method. For this purpose, our hybrid approach
employs GA method first to identify candidate local
minimum regions by deriving a number of elite solutions
from the GA optimisation results. These elite solutions
are then used as a starting point to initiate the gradient
method while searching for the local minima. The opti-
mal moulding conditions are then derived by selecting
the best from among the solutions corresponding to
these local minima.
A case study has also been presented. It was found
that the hybrid method can improve optimisation
quality for most of the optimisation runs, regardless of
what generation size is used for the GA search process;
and the hybrid method has more stable optimisation
results than the sole GA method. The case study also
showed that the optimisation results from the hybrid
method when a smaller generation size is used may still
be better than those from sole GA method when a larger
generation size is used.
Acknowledgements This project was supported by the Academic
Research Fund, Ministry of Education, Singapore and Moldflow
Corporation.
References
1. Bernhardt EC, Bertacchi G,Moroni A (1983) Molding and cost
optimisation. In: Bernhardt EC (eds) CAE for Injection
Molding. Macmillan, New York, pp 222–273
2. Pandelidis I, Zou Q (1990) Optimisation of injection moulding
design. Part 2: moulding conditions optimisation. Polym Eng
Sci 30(15):873–882
3. Choi GH, Lee KD, Chang N, Kim SG (1994) Optimisation of
process parameters of injection moulding with neural network
application in a process simulation environment. Ann CIRP
43:449–452
4. Lee BH, Kim BH (1995) Optimisation of part wall thickness to
reduce warpage of injection-molded parts based on the modi-
fied complex method. Polym Plastics Technol Eng 35(5):793–
822
5. Jan TC, O’Brien KT (1991) Architecture of an expert system
for injection molding problems. SPE ANTEC, pp 124–443
6. Kameoka S, Haramoto N, Sakai T (1993) Development of an
expert system for injection molding operations. Adv Polym
Technol 63:403–418
7. Shelesh-Nezhad K, Siores E (1997) An intelligent system for
plastic injection molding process design. J Materials Processing
Technol 63:458–462
8. Kwong CK, Smith GF, Lau WS (1997) Application of case
based reasoning in injection moulding. J Material Processing
Technol 63:463–467
9. Kim SJ, Lee K, Kim YI (1996) Optimisation of injection
moulding conditions using Genetic Algorithm. In: Proceedings
of SPIE—the international society for optical engineering,
Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Belling-
ham, WA, USA 2644:173–180
10. Lee KS, Low CY, Rahman M, Zhang YF (2001) A genetic
algorithm based process planning system for mould base. Int J
Comput Appl Technol 14(4, 5, 6):190–203
11. Moldflow (1999) Moldflow plastic insight release 1.1 online
documentation
12. Britton GA, Lam YC, Deng YM (2002) Specification model: a
first step towards automatic interpretation of injection
moulding CAE results. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20(11):833–
843
13. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimisa-
tion, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading