Evaluation of in-mold sensors and machine data towards enhancing product quality and process monitoring via Industry 4.0

  • Saeed Farahani
  • Nathaniel Brown
  • Jonathan Loftis
  • Curtis Krick
  • Florian Pichl
  • Robert Vaculik
  • Srikanth PillaEmail author


With the rise of Industry 4.0-related technology in the plastic and composite industry, a new wealth of data from the production process is becoming available to manufacturers. The effective utilization of this data towards improving quality and output is therefore of critical importance but requires knowledge of the data that is truly useful and the application of that data to pre-developed models or trained algorithms. Accordingly, in this research, 12 different online data sources in the injection molding process are evaluated to determine their relative degree of importance in predicting variations on final part quality indices, namely part weight, thickness, and diameter. These data are obtained during each injection molding cycle using a data acquisition system connected to eight in-mold sensors and four machine data sources. Three distinct types of perturbations are introduced into the process to challenge the range of detection capacities of these various data sources: shot size variations, material disturbances, and shutdown of the mold cooling system. The resultant curves from these studies are then analyzed for critical values, and partial least square (PLS) regressions performed using the extracted values as predictors and the final part quality indices as responses. Using the standard coefficients from the PLS analysis, rankings of the correlations between the extracted values and final part quality indices are generated, indicating which data sources best detected variations in the final produced parts for each of the three perturbations.


Industry 4.0 Process monitoring Automatic quality control Injection molding In-mold sensors Data analysis Partial least square (PLS) regression Predictive modeling 



The authors would like to acknowledge Kistler Instrument Corp. for providing the sensor system and technical support.

Funding information

The authors wish to recognize the financial support of the South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA) under the SCRA-Academic Collaboration Team Feasibility Grants (Award# 2012732), Clemson Forward R-Initiatives Program: Clemson Research Fellows, the Robert Patrick Jenkins Professorship, and the Dean’s Faculty Fellow Professorship.


  1. 1.
    Frank AG, Dalenogare LS, Ayala NF (2019) Industry 4.0 technologies: implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int J Prod Econ 210:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang L, Törngren M, Onori M (2015) Current status and advancement of cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 37:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deloitte, Manufacturing trends quarterly, Deloitte2017. Accessed 05 July 2019
  4. 4.
    Chen Z, Turng LS (2005) A review of current developments in process and quality control for injection molding. Adv Polym Technol, Journal of the Polymer Processing Institute 24:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murakami T, Okamura T, Tanizaki N (1993) An operation assistance system for injection molding machines based on constraints processing. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 26:455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nagarsheth P (1989) An integrated system approach for injection molded plastic parts from design to fabrication, ANTEC’89: Plastics Create a World of Difference, pp 220–223Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mok S, Kwong C, Lau W (1999) Review of research in the determination of process parameters for plastic injection molding. Adv Polym Technol 18:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tseng WJ (1998) Statistical analysis of process parameters influencing dimensional control in ceramic injection molding. J Mater Process Technol 79:242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tang S, Tan Y, Sapuan S, Sulaiman S, Ismail N, Samin R (2007) The use of Taguchi method in the design of plastic injection mould for reducing warpage. J Mater Process Technol 182:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raviwongse R, Allada V (1997) Artificial neural network based model for computation of injection mould complexity. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 13:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sadeghi B (2000) A BP-neural network predictor model for plastic injection molding process. J Mater Process Technol 103:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li D, Zhou H, Zhao P, Li Y (2009) A real-time process optimization system for injection molding. Polym Eng Sci 49:2031–2040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanek M, Manas D, Manas M, Suba O (2011) Optimization of injection molding process. International Journal of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 5:413–421Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arney C (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Math Comput Educ 47:236Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fragkaki A, Farmaki E, Thomaidis N, Tsantili-Kakoulidou A, Angelis Y, Koupparis M et al (2012) Comparison of multiple linear regression, partial least squares and artificial neural networks for prediction of gas chromatographic relative retention times of trimethylsilylated anabolic androgenic steroids. J Chromatogr A 1256:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kazmer D, Westerdale S, Hazen D (2008) A comparison of statistical process control (SPC) and on-line multivariate analyses (MVA) for injection molding. Int Polym Process 23:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kazmer D, Barkan P (1997) The process capability of multi-cavity pressure control for the injection molding process. Polym Eng Sci 37:1880–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woll SL, Cooper DJ, Souder BV (1996) Online pattern-based part quality monitoring of the injection molding process. Polym Eng Sci 36:1477–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pressure and Temperature Sensor, Kistler Products. Available: Accessed 05 July 2019
  20. 20.
    Yang Y, Gao F (2006) Injection molding product weight: online prediction and control based on a nonlinear principal component regression model. Polym Eng Sci 46:540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saeed Farahani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nathaniel Brown
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jonathan Loftis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Curtis Krick
    • 4
  • Florian Pichl
    • 5
  • Robert Vaculik
    • 5
  • Srikanth Pilla
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Automotive EngineeringClemson UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Clemson Composites CenterClemson UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  4. 4.Kistler Instrument CorpNoviUSA
  5. 5.Kistler GroupWinterthurSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Materials Science & EngineeringClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations