汽車軸蓋工藝分析及沖壓模具設(shè)計【帶凸緣的筒形件端蓋】【落料拉深沖孔和修邊復(fù)合?！?/h1>

汽車軸蓋工藝分析及沖壓模具設(shè)計【帶凸緣的筒形件端蓋】【落料拉深沖孔和修邊復(fù)合?！?帶凸緣的筒形件端蓋,落料拉深沖孔和修邊復(fù)合模,汽車,工藝,分析,沖壓,模具設(shè)計,凸緣,筒形件端蓋,落料拉深,沖孔,復(fù)合 http:/ of Cellular Plastics http:/ online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0021955X10376454 2010 46: 519 originally published online 25 August 2010Journal of Cellular PlasticsHongBin Wu, Erich Wintermantel and Hvard J. HaugenTechnologywith MuCell The Effects of Mold Design on the Pore Morphology of Polymers Produced Published by: http:/ can be found at:Journal of Cellular PlasticsAdditional services and information for http:/ Alerts: http:/ http:/ http:/ http:/ What is This? - Aug 25, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 12, 2010Version of Record by guest on April 1, Downloaded from The Effects of Mold Designon the Pore Morphology ofPolymers Produced withMuCell?TechnologyHONGBINWU*ANDERICHWINTERMANTELDepartment and Chair for Medical Engineering, TU Mu nchen,Boltzmannstr.15, 85748 Garching, GermanyHAVARDJ. HAUGENDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute for Clinical Dentistry,University of Oslo, PO Box 1109 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, NorwayABSTRACT: In this study two molds were designed and used in MuCell?technology to generate implants with a porous structure. To arrive the desiredpore structure many process parameters were investigated for indicating theeffects of process parameters on the pore morphology. This process parameterinvestigation was performed on each mold respectively, so that the influencesof the mold design on the pore morphology have been researched by the sameprocess parameter setting. It was found that the mold design also had effectson the pore structure in MuCell?technology. A proper mold design couldimprove the generated pore structure, such as porosity, pore diameter, andinterconnectivity.KEY WORDS: mold design, cell morphology, MuCell?, injection molding,medical implant, porous polymer, polyurethane.*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail: Figure 2 appears in color online: http:/JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PLASTICS Volume 46 November 20105190021-955X/10/06 051912 $10.00/0DOI: 10.1177/0021955X10376454? The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:http:/www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav by guest on April 1, Downloaded from INTRODUCTIONMuCell?technology, as an effective microcellular injection mold-ing process, is widely used in automobile and furniture industries.In most cases, MuCell?technology is used to save raw materials, but itis also used to produce implants with closed porous structure 1. It usesCO2as blowing agent, which is injected in the plasticization section ofthe injection molding machine (Figure 1). The blowing agent is injectedinto the polymer melt through the gas supply line and injector, in itssuper critical state, by the plasticization phase of the injection moldingmachine. After the plasticization the mixture of polymer melt and gas isinjected through the nozzle into the mold, where the foam structure canbe generated due to the quick pressure drop in the mold. The mainproducts which are produced today with MuCell?technology have closedcellular foam 24.Some studies have investigated the relations between the key processparameters in MuCell?technology and produced cellular foam structure1,5,6. It was found that the pore morphology in MuCell?process couldbe adjusted through varying the process parameters. However, there iscurrently no literature regarding the effects of mold design on the poremorphology by MuCell?technology.In this study two molds were designed and used in MuCell?process togenerate implants with a porous structure for medical use. The researchof process parameters was independently performed on these two molds.By comparing the pore structure of implants made from two molds atthe same process parameter setting, the influences of the mold design onthe porous structure were investigated.Gas injectorShut-off nozzleMixing and shearingelementGas supply lineGas pumpFigure 1. Draft of the MuCell?technology (figure according to 12).520H. B. WU ET AL. by guest on April 1, Downloaded from MATERIALS AND METHODSPolymer ProcessingMedical grade thermoplastic polyurethane TPU (Texin?985, Bayer,Pa, USA) was chosen as raw material for the implant. An injectionmolding machine (KM 125-520C2, KraussMaffei Technologies GmbH,Munich, Germany) with a temperature control unit for cooling the mold(90S/6/TS22/1K/RT45, Regloplas, St. Gallen, Switzerland) was used forthe production of the samples. The injection molding machine wasequipped with a MuCell?package by the Trexel Inc., Woburn, MA, USA.The MuCell?package is schematically shown in Figure 1. The blowingagent is injected into the polymer melt through the gas supply line andinjector, in its super critical state, by the plasticization phase of theinjection molding machine. After the plasticization the mixture ofpolymer melt and gas is injected through the nozzle into the mold, wherethe foam structure can be generated due to the quick pressure drop inthe mold.CO2was used as blowing agent (CO2protective gas DIN-32525-C1,Westfalen AG, Mu nster, Germany).In order to produce the implant, two particular molds were designedand used. The technical drawings of molded parts from mold A and moldB are shown in Figure 2. The mold A had six ring shaped implantsand was just used for the preliminary test of the feasibility of thefoaming process and parameter research. The mold B was designed withsix solid disk shaped implant based on the results of in vivo test ofimplants from mold A, for a higher biological requirement andprospective production.(a)(b)Figure 2. Different mold designs.Effects of Mold Design on the Pore Morphology of Polymers521 by guest on April 1, Downloaded from Two molds have similar gate, runner, and sprues. The mold B has ashorter polymer melt flow of mold cavity and the L/D (length/thickness)of 2.8, whereas this L/D for mold A is 4.7. This means the molded partfrom mold B is relatively thicker but shorter. The advantage of mold B isthat the energy loss of melt flow, which dominates the cell nucleationand growth, is reduced due to the shorter flow path (low L/D). As aresult better pore morphology, such as bigger mean pore size, higherporosity, and so on, could be expected. On the other hand the mold B hasa bigger capacity which means more possibilities of parameter variation.The disadvantage of mold B is that relative thicker molded part will leadto an incomplete filling of the cavity of mold B, a long cooling time, andsignificant shrinkage of molded part, in normal injection moldingprocess. These problems could be partially or wholly resolved if thefoaming process is applied due to the expansion of foamed polymer.Experimental StrategyThe choice of the changeable parameters was made based on theknowledge given by nucleation theory and literature search 5,7. Theranges of variable parameters and the values of fixed parameters arepresented in Table 1. The experiments were done by varying one ofTable 1.Ranges of variable parameters and valuesof fixed parameters of the MuCell?process in this study.The microcellular process pressure (MPP) is an activepressure that keeps the gas in polymer melt. Thispressure is actually the plasticizing pressure.Variable parametersExamined rangeCO2concentration16wt%Degree of weight reduction3565%Injection speed30300mm/sPlasticizing pressure/MPP160220barPlasticizing temperature1802108CMold temperature25858CFixed parametersValueCooling time120sDwell pressure450barBeginning dwell pressure0.5mmDuration of dwell pressure0.5sClamp tonnage200kNPlasticizing rotation40min?1Injection pressure03000bar522H. B. WU ET AL. by guest on April 1, Downloaded from variable parameters while keeping the others constant. The wholeprocess parameters investigation was performed on two molds respec-tively. The implants from two molds, which were used to be compared,were produced at exactly same process parameters, so that the effects ofdifferent molds were shown.Characterization of Macro- and MicrostructuresScanning electron microscopy (SEM; Jeol JSM-6060LV, JEOL Ltd.,Tokyo, Japan) was used for the observation of the pore morphology ofthe cross section of implant. The samples were sliced with a scalpel andthen coated with a thin gold layer by using a sputter-coater (SCD 005,BAL-TEC AG, Balzers, Lichtenstein) under high vacuum with a voltagerange between 5 and 15kV. Characteristics of porous structure such aspore size and porosity can be calculated by counting the average cellnumber and size of several SEM-images from one sample.One cut area with certain size was chosen and all pores were mea-sured manually with the help of software of digital microscope (VHX-500, Keyence Corporation, Osaka, Japan). The average diameter ofpores was calculated as Dmeasured. Due to the fact that the pores shownin the micrographs are 2D projections of 3D objects, their maximumdiameter may not be represented in the image. Following equation wasused for determination of the maximum spherical diameter, namedcorrected median pore diameter, from the measured pore diameter: 1.DCorrDmeasured0:6161MicroCT (SkyScan 1172, SkyScan, Kontich, Belgium) was used toquantitatively measure the porous interconnectivity of implants three8mm?11mm cylindrical samples from each implant (n3) at 7mmresolution using a voltage of 59kV, and a current of 167mA. Imagereconstruction and analysis were conducted using the software packageprovided by SkyScan. Samples were rotated 1808 around their long axisand three absorption images were recorded every 0.400oof rotation.These raw images of the samples were reconstructed with the standardSkyScan reconstruction software (NRecon) to serial coronal-orientedtomograms using 3D cone beam reconstruction algorithm. For thereconstruction, beam hardening was set to 20% and ring artefactreduction to 12.The image analysis of the reconstructed axial bitmap images wasperformed using the standard SkyScan software (CTan and CTvol).Effects of Mold Design on the Pore Morphology of Polymers523 by guest on April 1, Downloaded from First, a thresholding analysis was performed to determine the thresholdvalue for which the greyscale tomograms of scaffolds were mostaccurately represented by their binarised counterparts in terms ofporosity. The threshold value was set between 65 and 225 for this study.Additional noise was removed by the despeckling function. All objectssmaller than 500voxels and not connected to the 3D body were thusremoved prior to further analysis. In order to eliminate potential edgeeffects, a cylindrical volume of interest (VOI) with a diameter of 5mmand a height of 2.5mm was selected in the centre of the scaffold. Scaffoldporosity was then calculated as follows:Porosity 100% ? vol:% of binarised object scaffoldmaterials in VOI2All images underwent 3D analysis, followed by the quantification ofinterconnectivity using the shrink-wrap function, which allows mea-suring the fraction of pore volume in a scaffold that was accessible fromthe outside through openings of a certain minimum size 8. A shrink-wrap process was performed between two 3D measurements to shrinkthe outside boundary of the VOI in a scaffold through openings the sizeof which was equal to or larger than a threshold value (0280mm wereused in this study). Interconnectivity was calculated as follows:Interconnectivity V ? Vshrink-wrapV ? Vm? 100%,3where V is the total volume of VOI, Vshrink-wrapis the VOI volume aftershrink-wrap processing, and Vmis the volume of scaffold material.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe SEM images (Figure 3) show the pore structures of foamedimplants from two molds in the injection speed variation with value of30mm/s, when the other process parameters were kept unchanged(weight reduction of 35%, plasticizing temperature of 1808C, plasticizingpressure of 180bar, mold temperature of 258C, and gas content of 2%). Itwas found that the left image, which came from the foamed implantfrom mold B, showed a significant larger pore size than right image frommold A. The interconnective pore size 9,10 which means the windowbetween two connective pores has also the same change trend. FromFigure 3 it could be qualitatively seen that the implants from mold B hada larger pore size and interconnective pore size and possibly had a higherporosity than those from mold A at the same process parameter.524H. B. WU ET AL. by guest on April 1, Downloaded from It was found from Figure 4 that the implants from mold B at everydifferent injection speed had a higher porosity than the implants frommold A. The porosity range of implants from mold B was between 73%and 79%, whereas by mold A this porosity range was between 60% and67%. At the same time the standard deviation of the porosity from moldB was significantly smaller than the deviation by mold A.Figure 3. Different pore structures of mold B (left) and mold A (right) at the injectionspeed of 30mm/s.85Mold AMold B807570Porosity (%)65605550050100150Injection speed (mm/s)200250300Figure 4. Differences of the porosity at injection speed variation.Effects of Mold Design on the Pore Morphology of Polymers525 by guest on April 1, Downloaded from Figure 5 shows the mean pore size of two molds by different injectionspeeds. The pore size decreased with rise of the injection speed for twomolds. The same result was also found by other study 11. The porediameter of the implants from mold B decreased from 340?17mm to246?20mm with injection speed increase; the mold A showed the porediameter from 234?90mm to 152?34mm by the same injection speedvariation. The mean pore size from mold B at every speed was alsohigher compared with mold A. It was clear that the standard deviationfrom mold B was also significantly smaller than the values from mold A.Figure 6 shows the interconnective pore size of foamed implants. Theinterconnective pore size is very important for the tissue in growth inBiology. The interconnective pore size of foamed implants from mold Bhad a range of 91?6mm to 67?7mm; by mold A this range was35?10mm to 19?8mm. This change was also corresponding to thefinding in the mean pore size of foamed implants from two molds.It could be concluded from Figures 36 that the improved mold designof mold B could not affect the change tendency of pore structure, such asdecreased pore size with rise of the injection speed, but it could increasethe porosity and the mean pore size as well as the interconnective poresize of the foamed implants. At the same time the standard deviation of400Mold AMold B350300250Pore diameter (mm)200150100500050100150Injection speed (mm/s)200250300Figure 5. The mean pore size from two molds at different injection speeds.526H. B. WU ET AL. by guest on April 1, Downloaded from pore structure was significantly decreased. In other words the porestructure of foamed implants from mold B had a higher porosity, a largerpore size, and was more uniform than those from mold A.Figure 7 shows the comparison of the maximal porosity at differentkinds of process parameter variations, including the injection speed, fromtwo molds. In every kind of process parameter variations, the maximalporosity was always obtained at a same setting value for two molds, suchas 79% and 67% at 300mm/s by mold B and mold A for the injection speedvariation. It was observed that mold B indicated a higher maximalporosity at every kind of parameter variation. The porosity at 35% weightreduction from mold B showed a minimal elevation of ca. 6% while themaximalporosityelevationof14%wasfoundbyinjectionspeedvariation.The differences between the maximal pore sizes at different kinds ofprocess parameter variations of two molds are shown in Figure 8.Implants from two molds showed the maximal pore size also at the sameprocess parameters setting in every kind of variation. The mold B hasalways a larger maximal pore size than mold A. The minimal elevation ofmaxima pore size of mold B was 14% by the plasticizing temperaturevariation, whereas the maximal elevation of pore size with value of 45%was found by the injection speed variation.100Mold AMold B80907060Size of interconnections (mm)50403020100050100150Injection speed (mm/s)200250300Figure 6. Size of interconnections of implants at different injection speeds.Effects of Mold Design on the Pore Morphology of Polymers527 by guest on April 1, Downloaded from Mold AMold B80907060Maximal porosiry (%)50403020100Injectionspeed(300mm/s)Weightreduction(35%)Gascontent(2%)Moldtemperature(25C)Plasticizingtemperature(180C)Figure 7. Differences between the maximal porosity at different processing parametersfor two molds.Mold AMold B900750600Pore diameter (mm)4503001500Injectionspeed(300mm/s)Gas content &weight reduction (1% & 65%)Moldtemperature(25C)Plasticizingtemperature(180C)Figure 8. Differences between the maximal pore size at different process parameters fortwo molds.528H. B. WU ET AL. by guest on April 1, Downloaded from Figure 7 and 8 have indicated that the improvement of the porestructure, such as maximal pore size and porosity, induced by thechange of mold design could be observed not only in variation of theinjection speed but also in all process parameters variations. Theshortened L/D by mold B led to a decreased energy loss which dominatesthe cell nucleation, during the polymer melt flow in the mold cavity. Therelative thicker implant from mold B needed also a longer cooling time,which was very important for the cell growth in the mold. Consideringthe possibility of interaction of these factors, using formulae of cellnucleation theory to predict the change of final pore morphology is verydifficult in this study, but the effects of mold design on pore morphologysuch as porosity and mean pore size were successfully observed throughthe experiments.CONCLUSIONThis study was intent to investigate the potential effect of the molddesign on the pore morphology. The improved pore morphology such asthe higher porosity, larger mean pore size, and smaller deviation wasfound by the foamed samples from mold B. This indicated that besidesthe effects of process parameters, the mold design, that is, productdesign has also a distinct influence on the foam behavior of foamingprocess, which has given the possibility to improve the pore morphologythrough a more suitable mold design if the process parameters arelimited.Theporosityandporesizearekeypropertiesforporousmedicaldevicessince cells need space in order to grow. Additionally, the pores need to beinterconnected to allow the cells to migrate into the porous structure.This study showed that when producing porous medical polymer devices,appropriate mold design is a key factor for a successful device.ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors acknowledge the financial support of BayerischeForschungsstiftung with grant number AZ 639/05.REFERENCES1. Leicher, S., Walter, A., Schneebauer, M. et al. Molded Polystyrene Material,Cell. Polym., 2006: 25: 99107.2. Dassow, J. Foamed Parts with Excellent Surface Quality, Kunstst-Plast. Eur.,2003: 93: 65.Effects of Mold Design on the Pore Morphology of Polymers529 by guest on April 1, Downloaded from 3. Rief, B. and Gundrum, J. Mikrozellulare Bauteile aus der Spritzgie-maschine, Kunstst-Plast. Eur., 2003: 93: 4245.4. Schonherr, O. Physical Foaming for Cost-effective Injection Moulding,Kunstst-Plast. Eur., 2003: 93: A22A27.5. Kawashima, H. and Shimbo, M. Effect of Key Variables on Microstructure ofInjection Molded Microcellular Polystyrene Foams, Cell. Polym., 2003: 22:175190.6. Wu, H., Krampe, E., Schlicht, H. and Wintermantel, E. (2009). Applicationof a Microcellular Injection Molding Process (MuCell?) to Produce anImplant with Porous Structure, Berlin, Springer Verlag.7. Okamoto, K.T. (2003). Microcellular Processing, Munich, Carl HanserVerlag.8. Moore, M.J., Jabbari, E., Ritman, E.L. et al. Quantitative Analysis ofInterconnectivityofPorousBiodegradableScaffoldswithMicro-CT,J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A., 2004: 71: 258267.9. Lu, J.X., Flautre, B., Anselme, K. et al. Role of Interconnections in PorousBioceramics on Bone Recolonization In Vitro and In Vivo, J. Mater. Sci.Mater. Med., 1999: 10: 111120.10. Mastrogiacomo, M., Scaglione, S., Martinetti,

收藏