喜歡這套資料就充值下載吧。。。資源目錄里展示的都可在線預(yù)覽哦。。。下載后都有，，請(qǐng)放心下載，，文件全都包含在內(nèi)，，【有疑問(wèn)咨詢QQ:1064457796 或 1304139763】

DOI 10.1007/s00170-004-2328-8 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2006) 28: 6166 Fang-Jung Shiou Chao-Chang A. Chen Wen-Tu Li Automated surface finishing of plastic injection mold steel with spherical grinding and ball burnishing processes Received: 30 March 2004 / Accepted: 5 July 2004 / Published online: 30 March 2005 Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005 Abstract This study investigates the possibilities of automated spherical grinding and ball burnishing surface finishing pro- cesses in a freeform surface plastic injection mold steel PDS5 on a CNC machining center. The design and manufacture of a grinding tool holder has been accomplished in this study. The optimal surface grinding parameters were determined using Taguchis orthogonal array method for plastic injection molding steel PDS5 on a machining center. The optimal surface grind- ing parameters for the plastic injection mold steel PDS5 were the combination of an abrasive material of PA Al 2 O 3 , a grind- ing speed of 18 000 rpm, a grinding depth of 20 m, and a feed of 50 mm/min. The surface roughness R a of the specimen can be improved from about 1.60 mto0.35 m by using the optimal parameters for surface grinding. Surface roughness R a can be further improved from about 0.343 mto0.06 mbyusingthe ball burnishing process with the optimal burnishing parameters. Applying the optimal surface grinding and burnishing parame- ters sequentially to a fine-milled freeform surface mold insert, the surface roughness R a of freeform surface region on the tested part can be improved from about 2.15 mto0.07 m. Keywords Automated surface finishing Ball burnishing process Grinding process Surface roughness Taguchis method 1 Introduction Plastics are important engineering materials due to their specific characteristics, such as corrosion resistance, resistance to chemi- cals, low density, and ease of manufacture, and have increasingly F.-J. Shiou (a117) C.-C.A. Chen W.-T. Li Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Section 4, Keelung Road, 106 Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C. E-mail: shioumail.ntust.edu.tw Tel.: +88-62-2737-6543 Fax: +88-62-2737-6460 replaced metallic components in industrial applications. Injec- tion molding is one of the important forming processes for plas- tic products. The surface finish quality of the plastic injection mold is an essential requirement due to its direct effects on the appearance of the plastic product. Finishing processes such as grinding, polishing and lapping are commonly used to improve the surface finish. The mounted grinding tools (wheels) have been widely used in conventional mold and die finishing industries. The geometric model of mounted grinding tools for automated surface finish- ing processes was introduced in 1. A finishing process model of spherical grinding tools for automated surface finishing sys- tems was developed in 2. Grinding speed, depth of cut, feed rate, and wheel properties such as abrasive material and abrasive grain size, are the dominant parameters for the spherical grind- ing process, as shown in Fig. 1. The optimal spherical grinding parameters for the injection mold steel have not yet been investi- gated based in the literature. In recent years, some research has been carried out in de- termining the optimal parameters of the ball burnishing pro- cess (Fig. 2). For instance, it has been found that plastic de- formation on the workpiece surface can be reduced by using a tungsten carbide ball or a roller, thus improving the surface roughness, surface hardness, and fatigue resistance 36. The burnishing process is accomplished by machining centers 3, 4 and lathes 5, 6. The main burnishing parameters having signifi- cant effects on the surface roughness are ball or roller material, burnishing force, feed rate, burnishing speed, lubrication, and number of burnishing passes, among others 3. The optimal sur- face burnishing parameters for the plastic injection mold steel PDS5 were a combination of grease lubricant, the tungsten car- bide ball, a burnishing speed of 200 mm/min, a burnishing force of 300 N, and a feed of 40 m 7. The depth of penetration of the burnished surface using the optimal ball burnishing parameters was about 2.5 microns. The improvement of the surface rough- ness through burnishing process generally ranged between 40% and 90% 37. The aim of this study was to develop spherical grinding and ball burnishing surface finish processes of a freeform surface 62 plastic injection mold on a machining center. The flowchart of automated surface finish using spherical grinding and ball bur- nishing processes is shown in Fig. 3. We began by designing and manufacturing the spherical grinding tool and its alignment de- vice for use on a machining center. The optimal surface spherical grinding parameters were determined by utilizing a Taguchis orthogonal array method. Four factors and three corresponding levels were then chosen for the Taguchis L 18 matrix experiment. The optimal mounted spherical grinding parameters for surface grinding were then applied to the surface finish of a freeform surface carrier. To improve the surface roughness, the ground surface was further burnished, using the optimal ball burnishing parameters. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the spherical grinding process Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the ball-burnishing process Fig. 3. Flowchart of automated surface finish using spherical grinding and ball burnishing processes 2 Design of the spherical grinding tool and its alignment device To carry out the possible spherical grinding process of a freeform surface, the center of the ball grinder should coincide with the z-axis of the machining center. The mounted spherical grinding tool and its adjustment device was designed, as shown in Fig. 4. The electric grinder was mounted in a tool holder with two ad- justable pivot screws. The center of the grinder ball was well aligned with the help of the conic groove of the alignment com- ponents. Having aligned the grinder ball, two adjustable pivot screws were tightened; after which, the alignment components could be removed. The deviation between the center coordi- nates of the ball grinder and that of the shank was about 5 m, which was measured by a CNC coordinate measuring machine. The force induced by the vibration of the machine bed is ab- sorbed by a helical spring. The manufactured spherical grind- ing tool and ball-burnishing tool were mounted, as shown in Fig. 5. The spindle was locked for both the spherical grinding process and the ball burnishing process by a spindle-locking mechanism. 63 Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of the spherical grinding tool and its adjust- ment device 3 Planning of the matrix experiment 3.1 Configuration of Taguchis orthogonal array The effects of several parameters can be determined efficiently by conducting matrix experiments using Taguchis orthogonal array 8. To match the aforementioned spherical grinding pa- rameters, the abrasive material of the grinder ball (with the diam- eter of 10 mm), the feed rate, the depth of grinding, and the revolution of the electric grinder were selected as the four experi- mental factors (parameters) and designated as factor A to D (see Table 1) in this research. Three levels (settings) for each factor were configured to cover the range of interest, and were identi- Fig. 5. a Photo of the spherical grinding tool b Photo of the ball burnishing tool Table 1. The experimental factors and their levels Factor Level 123 A. Abrasive material SiC Al 2 O 3 ,WA Al 2 O 3 ,PA B. Feed (mm/min) 50 100 200 C. Depth of grinding (m) 20 50 80 D. Revolution (rpm) 12 000 18 000 24 000 fied by the digits 1, 2, and 3. Three types of abrasive materials, namely silicon carbide (SiC), white aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 , WA), and pink aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 , PA), were selected and studied. Three numerical values of each factor were determined based on the pre-study results. The L 18 orthogonal array was se- lected to conduct the matrix experiment for four 3-level factors of the spherical grinding process. 3.2 Definition of the data analysis Engineering design problems can be divided into smaller-the- better types, nominal-the-best types, larger-the-better types, signed-target types, among others 8. The signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio is used as the objective function for optimizing a product or process design. The surface roughness value of the ground sur- face via an adequate combination of grinding parameters should be smaller than that of the original surface. Consequently, the spherical grinding process is an example of a smaller-the-better type problem. The S/N ratio, , is defined by the following equation 8: =10 log 10 (mean square quality characteristic) =10 log 10 bracketleftBigg 1 n n summationdisplay i=1 y 2 i bracketrightBigg . (1) where: y i : observations of the quality characteristic under different noise conditions n: number of experiment After the S/N ratio from the experimental data of each L 18 orthogonal array is calculated, the main effect of each factor was determined by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) tech- nique and an F-ratio test 8. The optimization strategy of the 64 smaller-the better problem is to maximize ,asdefinedbyEq.1. Levels that maximize will be selected for the factors that have a significant effect on . The optimal conditions for spherical grinding can then be determined. 4 Experimental work and results The material used in this study was PDS5 tool steel (equiva- lent to AISI P20) 9, which is commonly used for the molds of large plastic injection products in the field of automobile com- ponents and domestic appliances. The hardness of this material is about HRC33 (HS46) 9. One specific advantage of this ma- terial is that after machining, the mold can be directly used for further finishing processes without heat treatment due to its special pre-treatment. The specimens were designed and manu- factured so that they could be mounted on a dynamometer to measure the reaction force. The PDS5 specimen was roughly ma- chined and then mounted on the dynamometer to carry out the fine milling on a three-axis machining center made by Yang- Iron Company (type MV-3A), equipped with a FUNUC Com- pany NC-controller (type 0M) 10. The pre-machined surface roughness was measured, using Hommelwerke T4000 equip- ment, to be about 1.6 m. Figure 6 shows the experimental set-up of the spherical grinding process. A MP10 touch-trigger probe made by the Renishaw Company was also integrated with the machining center tool magazine to measure and determine the coordinated origin of the specimen to be ground. The NC codes needed for the ball-burnishing path were generated by PowerMILL CAM software. These codes can be transmitted to the CNC controller of the machining center via RS232 serial interface. Table 2 summarizes the measured ground surface roughness value R a and the calculated S/N ratio of each L 18 orthogonal ar- ray using Eq. 1, after having executed the 18 matrix experiments. The average S/N ratio for each level of the four factors can be obtained, as listed in Table 3, by taking the numerical values pro- vided in Table 2. The average S/N ratio for each level of the four factors is shown graphically in Fig. 7. Fig. 6. Experimental set-up to determine the op- timal spherical grinding parameters Table 2. Ground surface roughness of PDS5 specimen Exp. Inner array Measured surface Response no. (control factors) roughness value (R a ) ABCD y 1 y 2 y 3 S/N ratio Mean (m) (m) (m) (dB) y (m) 1 1 1 1 1 0.35 0.35 0.35 9.119 0.350 2 1 2 2 2 0.37 0.36 0.38 8.634 0.370 3 1 3 3 3 0.41 0.44 0.40 7.597 0.417 4 2 1 2 3 0.63 0.65 0.64 3.876 0.640 5 2 2 3 1 0.73 0.77 0.78 2.380 0.760 6 2 3 1 2 0.45 0.42 0.39 7.520 0.420 7 3 1 3 2 0.34 0.31 0.32 9.801 0.323 8 3 2 1 3 0.27 0.25 0.28 11.471 0.267 9 3 3 2 1 0.32 0.32 0.32 9.897 0.320 10 1 1 2 2 0.35 0.39 0.40 8.390 0.380 11 1 2 3 3 0.41 0.50 0.43 6.968 0.447 12 1 3 1 1 0.40 0.39 0.42 7.883 0.403 13 2 1 1 3 0.33 0.34 0.31 9.712 0.327 14 2 2 2 1 0.48 0.50 0.47 6.312 0.483 15 2 3 3 2 0.57 0.61 0.53 4.868 0.570 16 3 1 3 1 0.59 0.55 0.54 5.030 0.560 17 3 2 1 2 0.36 0.36 0.35 8.954 0.357 18 3 3 2 3 0.57 0.53 0.53 5.293 0.543 Table 3. Average S/N ratios by factor levels (dB) Factor A B C D Level 1 8.099 7.655 9.110 6.770 Level 2 5.778 7.453 7.067 8.028 Level 3 8.408 7.176 6.107 7.486 Effect 2.630 0.479 3.003 1.258 Rank2413 Mean 7.428 The goal in the spherical grinding process is to minimize the surface roughness value of the ground specimen by determin- ing the optimal level of each factor. Since log is a monotone decreasing function, we should maximize the S/N ratio. Conse- quently, we can determine the optimal level for each factor as being the level that has the highest value of . Therefore, based 65 Fig. 7. Plots of control factor effects on the matrix experiment, the optimal abrasive material was pink aluminum oxide; the optimal feed was 50 mm/min; the optimal depth of grinding was 20 m; and the optimal revolution was 18 000 rpm, as shown in Table 4. The main effect of each factor was further determined by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique and an F ratio test in order to determine their significance (see Table 5). The F 0.10,2,13 is 2.76 for a level of significance equal to 0.10 (or 90% confidence level); the factors degree of freedom is 2 and the degree of freedom for the pooled error is 13, according to F-distribution table 11. An F ratio value greater than 2.76 can be concluded as having a significant effect on surface roughness and is identified by an asterisk. As a result, the feed and the depth of grinding have a significant effect on surface roughness. Five verification experiments were carried out to observe the repeatability of using the optimal combination of grinding pa- rameters, as shown in Table 6. The obtainable surface roughness value R a of such specimen was measured to be about 0.35 m. Surface roughness was improved by about 78% in using the op- Table 4. Optimal combination of spherical grinding parameters Factor Level Abrasive Al 2 O 3 ,PA Feed 50 mm/min Depth of grinding 20 m Revolution 18 000 rpm Table 5. ANOVA table for S/N ratio of surface roughness Factor Degrees Sum Mean F ratio of freedom of squares squares A 2 24.791 12.396 3.620 B 2 0.692 0.346 C 2 28.218 14.109 4.121 D 2 4.776 2.388 Error 9 39.043 Total 17 97.520 Pooled to error 13 44.511 3.424 F ratio value 2.76 has significant effect on surface roughness Table 6. Surface roughness value of the tested specimen after verification experiment Exp. no. Measured value R a (m) Mean y (m) S/N ratio y 1 y 2 y 3 1 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.313 10.073 2 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.363 8.802 3 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.367 8.714 4 0.35 0.37 0.34 0.353 9.031 5 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.347 9.163 Mean 0.349 9.163 timal combination of spherical grinding parameters. The ground surface was further burnished using the optimal ball burnishing parameters. A surface roughness value of R a = 0.06 m was ob- tainable after ball burnishing. Improvement of the burnished sur- face roughness observed with a 30 optical microscope is shown in Fig. 8. The improvement of pre-machined surfaces roughness was about 95% after the burnishing process. The optimal parameters for surface spherical grinding ob- tained from the Taguchis matrix experiments were applied to the surface finish of the freeform surface mold insert to evalu- ate the surface roughness improvement. A perfume bottle was selected as the tested carrier. The CNC machining of the mold in- sert for the tested object was simulated with PowerMILL CAM software. After fine milling, the mold insert was further ground with the optimal spherical grinding parameters obtained from the Taguchis matrix experiment. Shortly afterwards, the ground surface was burnished with the optimal ball burnishing parame- ters to further improve the surface roughness of the tested object (see Fig. 9). The surface roughness of the mold insert was meas- ured with Hommelwerke T4000 equipment. The average surface roughness value R a on a fine-milled surface of the mold insert was 2.15 m on average; that on the ground surface was 0.45 m Fig. 8. Comparison between the pre-machined surface, ground surface and the burnished surface of the tested specimen observed with a toolmaker microscope (30) 66 Fig. 9. Fine-milled, ground and burnished mold insert of a perfume bottle on average; and that on burnished surface was 0.07 monaver- age. The surface roughness improvement of the tested object on ground surface was about (2.150.45)/2.15 = 79.1%, and that on the burnished surface was about (2.150.07)/2.15 = 96.7%. 5 Conclusion In this work, the optimal parameters of automated spheri- cal grinding and ball-burnishing surface finishing processes in a freeform surface plastic injection mold were developed suc- cessfully on a machining center. The mounted spherical grinding tool (and its alignment components) was designed and manu- factured. The optimal spherical grinding parameters for surface grinding were determined by conducting a Taguchi L 18 matrix experiments. The optimal spherical grinding parameters for the plastic injection mold steel PDS5 were the combination of the abrasive material of pink aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ,PA),afeed of 50 mm/min, a depth of grinding 20 m, and a revolution of 18 000 rpm. The surface roughness R a of the specimen can be improved from about 1.6 mto0.35 m by using the optimal spherical grinding conditions for surface grinding. By applying the optimal surface grinding and burnishing parameters to the surface finish of the freeform surface mold insert, the surface roughness improvements were measured to be ground surface was about 79.1% in terms of ground surfaces, and about 96.7% in terms of burnished surfaces. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the National Science Coun- cil of the Republic of China for supporting this research with grant NSC 89-2212-E-011-059. References 1. Chen CCA, Yan WS (2000) Geometric model of mounted grinding tools for automated surface finishing processes. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automation Technology, Taipei, May 911, pp 4347 2. Chen CCA, Duffie NA, Liu WC (1997) A finishing model of spherical grinding tools for automated surface finishing systems. Int J Manuf Sci Prod 1(1):1726 3. Loh NH, Tam SC (1988) Effects of ball burnishing parameters on surface finisha literature survey and discussion. Precis Eng 10(4):215 220 4. Loh NH, Tam SC, Miyazawa S (1991) Investigations on the sur- face roughness produced by ball burnishing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 31(1):7581 5. Yu X, Wang L (1999) Effect of various parameters on the surface roughness of an aluminum alloy burnished with a spherical surfaced polycrystalline diamond tool. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:459469 6. Klocke F, Liermann J (1996) Roller burnishing of hard turned surfaces. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38(5):419423 7. Shiou FJ, Chen CH (2003) Determination of optimal ball-burnishing parameters for plastic injection molding steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 3:177185 8. Phadke MS (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 9. Ta-Tung Company (1985) Technical handbook for the selection of plas- tic injection mold steel. Taiwan 10. Yang Iron Works (1996) Technical handbook of MV-3A vertical ma- chining center. Taiwan 11. Montgomery DC (1991) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York