4.6 Article

Comparison of design of experiment methods for modeling injection molding experiments using artificial neural networks

Journal

JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Volume 61, Issue -, Pages 357-368

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.11.011

Keywords

Artificial neural networks; Design of experiments; Injection molding; Optimal design; Orthogonal taguchi arrays; Sparse data

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC-2023, 390621612]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different design of experiments strategies for injection molding process data are investigated, with 2(6-3) fractional factorial design and an inscribed central composite design found to be the most effective for modeling tasks.
Different design of experiments (DoE) strategies for generation of injection molding process data and later usage as training database, e. g. for an artificial neural network substitute model, are investigated and compared. The objective is to find the most efficient and effective strategies for the modeling. The effects of six injection molding parameters on the length, width and weight of polypropylene plate specimen are simulated with different DoE methods from the following categories: full and fractional factorial designs, central composite designs, orthogonal Taguchi arrays, o-optimal designs and a space-filling design. The prediction performance, e. g. of the artificial neural networks, for unknown test data is evaluated. A 2(6-3) fractional factorial design including a center point is very efficient for this modeling task, whereas an inscribed central composite design is most effective. The artificial neural network with the latter experimental design as training data achieves a coefficient of determination R-2 of 0.930 without a hyperparameter tuning to the specific data set.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available