| Literature DB >> 28773830 |
Hifsa Pervez1, Mohammad S Mozumder2, Abdel-Hamid I Mourad3.
Abstract
The current study presents an investigation on the optimization of injection molding parameters of HDPE/TiO₂ nanocomposites using grey relational analysis with the Taguchi method. Four control factors, including filler concentration (i.e., TiO₂), barrel temperature, residence time and holding time, were chosen at three different levels of each. Mechanical properties, such as yield strength, Young's modulus and elongation, were selected as the performance targets. Nine experimental runs were carried out based on the Taguchi L₉ orthogonal array, and the data were processed according to the grey relational steps. The optimal process parameters were found based on the average responses of the grey relational grades, and the ideal operating conditions were found to be a filler concentration of 5 wt % TiO₂, a barrel temperature of 225 °C, a residence time of 30 min and a holding time of 20 s. Moreover, analysis of variance (ANOVA) has also been applied to identify the most significant factor, and the percentage of TiO₂ nanoparticles was found to have the most significant effect on the properties of the HDPE/TiO₂ nanocomposites fabricated through the injection molding process.Entities:
Keywords: HDPE/TiO2 nanocomposites; Taguchi method; grey relational analysis; injection molding parameters; optimization
Year: 2016 PMID: 28773830 PMCID: PMC5512532 DOI: 10.3390/ma9080710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1(a) Secondary electron SEM micrograph of HDPE composites with 5 wt % TiO2 prepared at a barrel temperature of 250 °C with a residence time of 50 min; (b) elemental mapping by EDS showing the constituent elements of the nanocomposites (the percentage of TiO2 was found to be at 80.88%). (Scale bar in (b)).
Experimental factors and factor levels.
| Factor Levels | Control Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration of Nano-TiO2 (A, %) | Barrel Temperature (B, °C) | Residence Time (C, min) | Holding Time (D, s) | |
| 1 | 1 | 200 | 30 | 16 |
| 2 | 5 | 225 | 50 | 18 |
| 3 | 10 | 250 | 70 | 20 |
Taguchi orthogonal L9 array.
| Run No. | Concentration of Nano-TiO2 (A, %) | Barrel Temperature (B, °C) | Residence Time (C, min) | Holding Time (D, s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
|
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
|
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Figure 2Procedure of the grey relational analysis [38].
Mechanical testing results.
| Run No. | Yield Strength ( | Young’s Modulus (E, MPa) | Elongation (% |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20.9 ± 0.2 | 384.3 ± 16.4 | 576.9 ± 31.7 |
|
| 20.5 ± 0.5 | 364.6 ± 13.4 | 580.8 ± 29.2 |
|
| 19.3 ± 0.7 | 363.2 ± 19.9 | 598.6 ± 41.4 |
|
| 22.1 ± 0.6 | 481.8 ± 16.6 | 492.5 ± 30.0 |
|
| 22.6 ± 0.3 | 346 ± 23.6 | 646.8 ± 36.6 |
|
| 21.3 ± 0.6 | 401.1 ± 12.6 | 622 ± 35.8 |
|
| 20.8 ± 0.6 | 438.5 ± 20.6 | 412 ± 35.0 |
|
| 21.5 ± 0.7 | 425.9 ± 17.0 | 628.6 ± 42.0 |
|
| 19.9 ± 0.2 | 422.9 ± 13.5 | 559.3 ± 31.4 |
Comparability sequence after data pre-processing.
| Experimental Run | Orthogonal Array | Comparability Sequence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | Yield Strength ( | Young’s Modulus (E, MPa) | Elongation (% | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.4815 | 0.2820 | 0.7023 |
|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.3704 | 0.1372 | 0.7189 |
|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0.0000 | 0.1268 | 0.7947 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.8344 | 1.0000 | 0.3428 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
|
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.5926 | 0.4058 | 0.8944 |
|
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0.4444 | 0.6813 | 0.0000 |
|
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.6667 | 0.5885 | 0.9225 |
|
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.1852 | 0.5663 | 0.6273 |
Reference sequences and calculated grey relational coefficients.
| Experimental Run | Reference Sequence | Grey Coefficients | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yield Strength ( | Young’s Modulus (E, MPa) | Elongation (% | Yield Strength ( | Young’s Modulus (E, MPa) | Elongation (% | |
|
| 0.5185 | 0.7180 | 0.2977 | 0.4909 | 0.4105 | 0.6268 |
|
| 0.6296 | 0.8628 | 0.2811 | 0.4426 | 0.3669 | 0.6401 |
|
| 1.0000 | 0.8732 | 0.2053 | 0.3333 | 0.3641 | 0.7089 |
|
| 0.1656 | 0.0000 | 0.6572 | 0.7512 | 1.0000 | 0.4321 |
|
| 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.3333 | 1.0000 |
|
| 0.4074 | 0.5942 | 0.1056 | 0.5510 | 0.4569 | 0.8256 |
|
| 0.5556 | 0.3187 | 1.0000 | 0.4737 | 0.6107 | 0.3333 |
|
| 0.3333 | 0.4115 | 0.0775 | 0.6000 | 0.5486 | 0.8658 |
|
| 0.8148 | 0.4337 | 0.3727 | 0.3803 | 0.5355 | 0.5730 |
Calculated grey relational grades of all of the experimental runs.
| Experimental Run | Orthogonal Array | Grey Relational Grades | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | ||
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5094 |
|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.4832 |
|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0.4688 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.7278 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0.7778 |
|
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.6112 |
|
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0.4726 |
|
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.6715 |
|
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.4963 |
Response table of the grey relational grades for the target variables.
| Control Levels | Response Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | |
|
| 0.4871 | 0.5699 | 0.5973 | 0.5945 |
|
| 0.7056 | 0.6441 | 0.5691 | 0.5223 |
|
| 0.5468 | 0.5254 | 0.5730 | 0.6227 |
ANOVA results.
| Control Factors | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Degrees of Freedom | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F | Percentage Contribution (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.4871 | 0.7056 | 0.5468 | 2 | 0.0765 | 0.0383 | 0.0383 | 66.20 |
| B | 0.5699 | 0.6441 | 0.5254 | 2 | 0.0216 | 0.0108 | 0.0108 | 18.67 |
| C | 0.5973 | 0.5691 | 0.573 | 2 | 0.0014 | 0.0007 | 0.0007 | 1.21 |
| D | 0.5945 | 0.5223 | 0.6227 | 2 | 0.0161 | 0.0080 | 0.0080 | 13.92 |
| Error | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||||
| Total | 8 | 0.1156 | 0.0578 | 0.0578 | 100.00 |