| Literature DB >> 35808629 |
Hanjui Chang1,2, Guangyi Zhang1,2, Yue Sun1,2, Shuzhou Lu1,2.
Abstract
This paper uses a multi-objective optimization method to optimize the injection-molding defects of automotive pedals. Compared with the traditional automotive pedal material, aluminum alloy, the polymer pedal containing glass fibers not only reduces the aluminum pedal by at least half, but also improves the strength and hardness of the fibers by adjusting the orientation of the fibers in all directions. Injection factors include: filling time, filling pressure, melt temperature, cooling time, injection time, etc. For the optimization process influencing factors, herein, we focus on warpage analyzed via flow simulation, and setting warpage parameters and cycle time as discussed by setting different cooling distributions, pressures and temperature schemes. The multi-objective optimization design was mainly used to describe the relationship between cycle time and warpage, and the Pareto boundary was used for cycle time and warpage to identify the deviation function and radial-basis-function network. We worked with a small DOE for building the surface to run SAO programming-which improved the accuracy of the response surface by adding sampling points-terminating the time when the warpage value met the solution requirements, to find out the global optimal solution of the warpage value under different cooling times. Finally, the results highlighted four influencing parameters that match the experimental image of the actual production.Entities:
Keywords: Pareto boundary; brake pedal; conformal cooling channel; cycle time; sequential approximate optimization; warpage
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808629 PMCID: PMC9269529 DOI: 10.3390/polym14132578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Graphical Abstract.
Figure 2Product appearance and size.
Properties of PA6 AKROMID B3 GF 40 schwarz (3383) MECH material (data source: Moldex3D material library).
| Properties | Detail |
|---|---|
| Commercial product name | PA6 |
| Thermal expansivity (1/K) | 7.41 × 10−5 |
| Recommended mold temperature (°C) | 80 |
| Recommended melt temperature (°C) | 280 |
| Fiber content (%) | 40 |
| Ejection temperature (°C) | 90 |
| Modulus of elasticity (MPa) | 52,600 |
| Poisson ratio | 0.32 |
| Shear modulus (MPa) | 19,100 |
Figure 3PVT diagram.
Range of injection-molding parameters.
| Improvements to Plastic Temperature | 260 °C | 270 °C | 280 °C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooling time required (s) | 22 | 23 | 25.8 |
| Maximum temperature | 144 °C | 148 °C | 151 °C |
| Maximum warping volume (mm) | 3.578 | 3.647 | 3.639 |
| Fill-in time (s) | 1.876 | 1.837 | 1.866 |
| Volume shrinkage rate (%) | 13.1 | 13.6 | 13.47 |
| Maximum mode-locking force (Mpa) | 13.7 | 10.6 | 8.7 |
Figure 4Type of meshing figure.
Injection-molding parameter selection table.
| Set Multiple Pressure-Protection Methods with Different Pressures | Time (s) | Multi-Holding Ratio—Project I (%) | Multi-Holding Ratio— | Multi-Holding Ratio—Project III (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (s) | 0~4.15 | 100 | 90 | 60 |
| 4.15~5.53 | 90 | 75 | 50 | |
| 5.53~6.92 | 80 | 60 | 40 | |
| Volume shrinkage rate | Unit of (%) | 12.9 | 12.8 | 13.1 |
| Maximum warping volume | Unit (mm) | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.36 |
| Average warp volume | Unit (mm) | 1.86 | 1.88 | 2.02 |
| Maximum mode-locking force | Unit (Mpa) | 23.86 | 21.05 | 13.7 |
Figure 5Comparison of the optimized conformal waterway and the traditional waterway.
Figure 6Warpage comparison.
Figure 7Flow of sequential approximate optimization for multi-objection.
Figure 8Illustrative example of density function in one dimension.
Range of research factors.
| Tmelt (°C) | Range | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 260 | 1.8 | 10 | 5 | ≧ |
| 280 | 2.2 | 14 | 22 | ≦ |
P1, P2 and P3 point injection-molding parameter results.
| Packing Pressure | Filling Time | Melt Temperature | Cooling Time [s] | Cycle Time [s] | Warpage [mm] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 14 | 1.8 | 280 | 28 | 33.8 | 0.32 |
| P2 | 14 | 1.8 | 280 | 33.5 | 39.3 | 0.33 |
| P3 | 10 | 2.2 | 260 | 26.8 | 33.2 | 0.58 |
| Improvement rate | 25.5% | 18.4% | 44.8% |
Figure 9Physical pedal optimization.
Specification of optimal parameter values.
| Optimal Solution Parameters | Packing Pressure [Mpa] | Filling Time | Melt Temperature | Cooling Time [s] | Cycle Time [s] | Warpage [mm] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 1.8 | 280 | 28 | 33.8 | 0.32 |
Figure 10Numerical comparison of Pareto-optimal solution points between conventional and conformal cooling channels.