Design and Parametric Optimization of the Injection Molding Process Using Statistical Analysis and Numerical Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

This manuscript studies the warpage optimization using Taguchi analysis in injection molding of polyethylene terephthalate. The authors considerably improved the manuscript based on the previous comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The manuscript can be considered for publication now.

Author Response

All the authors are very thankful to the comments of Reviewer 1.

After the suggested changes, the article is now an improved one.

Once again, thank you very much for your encouraging comments after the resubmission of the article.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

please provide bigger images for clear interpretation. (FEA results and graphs)

Rest changes made in accordance to the comments. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your encouraging comments. Please note that all images and and tables have been updated in the revised manuscript. You can point out any image which needs further refinement. We will make changes accordingly.

Once again thank you very much.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript studies the warpage optimization using Taguchi analysis in injection molding of polyethylene terephthalate. The novelty of the manuscript is unclear. The simulation results have not been validated. The results have been presented without any discussion. It looks like a technical report not a research paper. This manuscript does not deserve the publication. My recommendations for improving the manuscript are as follows:

1. Please include the full form of ANOVA in the abstract.

2. Please provide all values in the same meaningful or significant number, for instance, in the Abstract 42.11 has 4 significant numbers and 41.278 has 5 significant numbers. Please address this issue throughout the text.

3. The abbreviation of PET has been defined in the beginning of Page 3; however, the full name has been used in the second paragraph of this page.

4. The novelties and the contributions of the study should be clearly highlighted in the last paragraph of the study. The last paragraph of the Introduction, in its current format, looks like an Abstract. Which gaps of the literature have been covered by this study?

5. Please revise Figure 2. It seems that the sentence “The standard dimensions of 28-gram PET preform are shown in Figure 2.” has been merged in Figure 2.

6. “An appropriate mesh size was adopted to mesh the preform. The total number of elements are recorded as 84166.” How do you conclude that this element number is appropriate? It is necessary to conduct a mesh independency procedure. Please also provide the mesh size.

7. How do you select these levels for the parameters? It is necessary to mention the reasons for considering the minimum and the maximum levels of each parameter.

8. It seems that the range of holding pressure time is small. It is well-known that the holding pressure time and holding pressure are very important parameters on controlling the shrinkage and the warpage. The reason for the low contribution of the holding pressure time on warpage could be its small range considered by the authors.

9. How do you trust the results of the simulation? It is very necessary to perform a validation for your simulation.

10. Please provide the supporting references for Equations (1) and (2)

11. The results of signal-to-noise ratio analysis (Table 3) and Pareto chart (Figure 5) do not agree with each other. The fourth parameter is injection pressure in Table 3; however, the fourth parameter is cooling time in Figure 5. This inconsistency is seen for the fifth parameter.

12. Figure 6 has been only presented and there is not any discussion on this figure which is one of the most important results of the study.

13. The contribution of Error is about 12% which is larger than four parameters of mould temperature, injection pressure, pressure holding time and cooling time. This shows the unsuitable design of experiment for this process.

14. The minimum level of melting temperature, the minimum level of mould temperature, the minimum level of injection pressure, the maximum level of holding pressure time, the minimum level of cooling time and the maximum level of ambient temperature is the optimum condition based on the results of Figure 7 and Table 7 (it is noteworthy to mention that they present the same results and presenting both of them is undesirable). This optimum condition does not match with the optimum condition presented by signal-to-noise ratio results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

-Provide some more literature of Injection moulding which deals with process optimization using different optimization methods. Also focus on those where warpage is optimized.

-Literature Gap is missing.

-Objectives should be more clear.

-Referring to  ANOVA table, also discuss the significance of the factors. (p value less than 0.05 are significant rest are non-significant. Kindly refer with your experimental run data and report them accordingly. 

-Provide convergence of your result with any related previous work.

-Provide future scope in the conclusion section

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-