復(fù)讀機(jī)后蓋注射模具的設(shè)計(jì)【屏蔽罩】【一模兩腔】【側(cè)抽芯】【注塑模具】【說(shuō)明書(shū)+CAD+PROE+仿真】
復(fù)讀機(jī)后蓋注射模具的設(shè)計(jì)【屏蔽罩】【一模兩腔】【側(cè)抽芯】【注塑模具】【說(shuō)明書(shū)+CAD+PROE+仿真】,屏蔽罩,一模兩腔,側(cè)抽芯,注塑模具,說(shuō)明書(shū)+CAD+PROE+仿真,復(fù)讀機(jī)后蓋注射模具的設(shè)計(jì)【屏蔽罩】【一模兩腔】【側(cè)抽芯】【注塑模具】【說(shuō)明書(shū)+CAD+PROE+仿真】,復(fù)讀機(jī),注射,模具,設(shè)計(jì),屏蔽
第 22 頁(yè) 共 23 頁(yè)
桂林電子科技大學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)用紙
Automated Assembly Modelling for Plastic Injection Moulds
An injection mould is a mechanical assembly that consists of product-dependent parts and product-independent parts. This paper addresses the two key issues of assembly modelling for injection moulds, namely, representing an injection mould assembly in a computer and determining the position and orientation of a product-independent part in an assembly. A feature-based and object-oriented representation is proposed to represent the hierarchical assembly of injection moulds. This representation requires and permits a designer to think beyond the mere shape of a part and state explicitly what portions of a part are important and why. Thus, it provides an opportunity for designers to design for assembly (DFA). A simplified symbolic geometric approach is also presented to infer the configurations of assembly objects in an assembly according to the mating conditions. Based on the proposed representation and the simplified symbolic geometric approach, automatic assembly modelling is further discussed.
Keywords: Assembly modelling; Feature-based; Injection moulds; Object-oriented
1. Introduction
Injection moulding is the most important process for manufacturing plastic moulded products. The necessary equipment consists of two main elements, the injection moulding machine and the injection mould. The injection moulding machines used today are so-called universal machines, onto which various moulds for plastic parts with different geometries can be mounted, within certain dimension limits, but the injection mould design has to change with plastic products. For different moulding geometries, different mould configurations are usually necessary. The primary task of an injection mould is to shape the molten material into the final shape of the plastic product. This task is fulfilled by the cavity system that consists of core, cavity, inserts, and slider/lifter heads. The geometrical shapes and sizes of a cavity system are determined directly by the plastic moulded product, so all components of a cavity system are called product-dependent parts. (Hereinafter, product refers to a plastic moulded product, part refers to the component of an injection mould.) Besides the primary task of shaping the product, an injection mould has also to fulfil a number oftasks such as the distribution of melt, cooling the molten material, ejection of the moulded product, transmitting motion, guiding, and aligning the mould halves. The functional parts to fulfil these tasks are usually similar in structure and geometrical shape for different injection moulds. Their structures and geometrical shapes are independent of the plastic moulded products, but their sizes can be changed according to the plastic products. Therefore, it can be concluded that an injection mould is actually a mechanical assembly that consists of product-dependent parts and product-independent parts. Figure 1 shows the assembly structure of an injection mould. The design of a product-dependent part is based on extracting the geometry from the plastic product. In recent years, CAD/CAM technology has been successfully used to help mould designers to design the product-dependent parts. The
Fig. 1. Assembly structure of an injection mould
automatic generation of the geometrical shape for a product-dependent part from the plastic product has also attracted a lot of research interest [1,2]. However, little work has been carried out on the assembly modelling of injection moulds, although it is as important as the design of product-dependent parts. The mould industry is facing the following two difficulties when use a CAD system to design product-independent parts and the whole assembly of an injection mould. First, there are usually around one hundred product-independent parts in a mould set, and these parts are associated with each other with different kinds of constraints. It is time-consuming for the designer to orient and position the components in an assembly. Secondly, while mould designers, most of the time, think on the level of real-world objects, such as screws, plates, and pins, the CAD system uses a totally different level of geometrical objects. As a result, high-level object-oriented ideas have to be translated to low-level CAD entities such as lines, surfaces, or solids. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an automatic assembly modelling system for injection moulds to solve these two problems. In this paper, we address the following two key issues for automatic assembly modelling: representing a product-independent part and a mould assembly in a computer; and determining the position and orientation of a component part in an assembly.
This paper gives a brief review of related research in assembly modelling, and presents an integrated representation for the injection mould assembly. A simplified geometric symbolic method is proposed to determine the position and orientation of a part in the mould assembly. An example of automatic assembly modelling of an injection mould is illustrated.
2. Related Research
Assembly modelling has been the subject of research in diverse fields, such as, kinematics, AI, and geometric modelling. Lib-ardi et al. [3] compiled a research review of assembly modelling. They reported that many researchers had used graph structures to model assembly topology. In this graph scheme, the components are represented by nodes, and transformation matrices are attached to arcs. However, the transformation matrices are not coupled together, which seriously affects the transformation procedure, i.e. if a subassembly is moved, all its constituent parts do not move correspondingly. Lee and Gossard [4] developed a system that supported a hierarchical assembly data structure containing more basic information about assemblies such as “mating feature” between the components. The transformation matrices are derived automatically from the associations of virtual links, but this hierarchical topology model represents only “part-of” relations effectively.
Automatically inferring the configuration of components in an assembly means that designers can avoid specifying the transformation matrices directly. Moreover, the position of a component will change whenever the size and position of its reference component are modified. There exist three techniques to infer the position and orientation of a component in the assembly: iterative numerical technique, symbolic algebraic technique, and symbolic geometric technique. Lee and Gossard [5] proposed an iterative numerical technique to compute the location and orientation of each component from the spatial relationships. Their method consists of three steps: generation of the constraint equations, reducing the number of equations, and solving the equations. There are 16 equations for “against” condition, 18 equations for “fit” condition, 6 property equations for each matrix, and 2 additional equations for a rotational part. Usually the number of equations exceeds the number of variables, so a method must be devised to remove the redundant equations. The Newton–Raphson iteration algorithm is used to solve the equations. This technique has two disadvantages: first, the solution is heavily dependent on the initial solution; secondly, the iterative numerical technique cannot distinguish between different roots in the solution space. Therefore, it is possible, in a purely spatial relationship problem, that a
mathematically valid, but physically unfeasible, solution can be obtained.
Ambler and Popplestone [6] suggested a method of computing the required rotation and translation for each component to satisfy the spatial relationships between the components in an assembly. Six variables (three translations and three rotations) for each component are solved to be consistent with the spatial relationships. This method requires a vast amount of programming and computation to rewrite related equations in a solvable format. Also, it does not guarantee a solution every time, especially when the equation cannot be rewritten in solvable forms.
Kramer [7] developed a symbolic geometric approach for determining the positions and orientations of rigid bodies that satisfy a set of geometric constraints. Reasoning about the geometric bodies is performed symbolically by generating a sequence of actions to satisfy each constraint incrementally, which results in the reduction of the object’s available degrees of freedom (DOF). The fundamental reference entity used by Kramer is called a “marker”, that is a point and two orthogonal axes. Seven constraints (coincident, in-line, in-plane, parallelFz, offsetFz, offsetFx and helical) between markers are defined. For a problem involving a single object and constraints between markers on that body, and markers which have invariant attributes, action analysis [7] is used to obtain a solution. Actionanalysis decides the final configuration of a geometric object, step by step. At each step in solving the object configuration, degrees of freedom analysis decides what action will satisfy one of the body’s as yet unsatisfied constraints, given the available degrees of freedom. It then calculates how that action further reduces the body’s degrees of freedom. At the end of each step, one appropriate action is added to the metaphorical assembly plan. According to Shah and Rogers [8], Kramer’s work represents the most significant development for assembly modelling. This symbolic geometric approach can locate all solutions to constraint conditions, and is computationally attractive compared to an iterative technique, but to implement this method, a large amount of programming is required.
Although many researchers have been actively involved in assembly modelling, little literature has been reported on feature based assembly modelling for injection mould design.Kruth et al. [9] developed a design support system for an injection mould. Their system supported the assembly design for injection moulds through high-level functional mould objects (components and features). Because their system was based on AutoCAD, it could only accommodate wire-frame and simple solid models.
3. Representation of Injection Mould
Assemblies The two key issues of automated assembly modelling for injection moulds are, representing a mould assembly in com- puters, and determining the position and orientation of a product-independent part in the assembly. In this section, we present an object-oriented and feature-based representation for assemblies of injection moulds.
The representation of assemblies in a computer involves structural and spatial relationships between individual parts. Such a representation must support the construction of an assembly from all the given parts, changes in the relative positioning of parts, and manipulation of the assembly as a whole. Moreover, the representations of assemblies must meet the following requirements from designers:
1. It should be possible to have high-level objects ready to use while mould designers think on the level of real-world objects.
2. The representation of assemblies should encapsulate operational functions to automate routine processes such as pocketing and interference checks.
To meet these requirements, a feature-based and object-oriented hierarchical model is proposed to represent injection moulds. An assembly may be divided into subassemblies, which in turn consists of subassemblies and/or individual components. Thus, a hierarchical model is most appropriate for representing the structural relations between components. A hierarchy implies a definite assembly sequence. In addition, a hierarchical model can provide an explicit representation of the dependency of the position of one part on another.
Feature-based design [10] allows designers to work at a somewhat higher level of abstraction than that possible with the direct use of solid modellers. Geometric features are instanced, sized, and located quickly by the user by specifying a minimum set of parameters, while the feature modeller works out the details. Also, it is easy to make design changes because of the associativities between geometric entities maintained in the data structure of feature modellers. Without features, designers have to be concerned with all the details of geometric construction procedures required by solid modellers, and design changes have to be strictly specified for every entity affected by the change. Moreover, the feature-based representation will provide high-level assembly objects for designers to use. For example, while mould designers think on the level of a real- world object, e.g. a counterbore hole, a feature object of a counterbore hole will be ready in the computer for use.
Object-oriented modelling [11,12] is a new way of thinking about problems using models organised around real-world concepts. The fundamental entity is the object, which combines both data structures and behaviour in a single entity. Object-
oriented models are useful for understanding problems and designing programs and databases. In addition, the object- oriented representation of assemblies makes it easy for a“child” object to inherit information from its “parent”.
Figure 2 shows the feature-based and object-oriented hier- archical representation of an injection mould. The representation is a hierarchical structure at multiple levels of abstraction, from low-level geometric entities (form feature) to high-level subassemblies. The items enclosed in the boxes represent “assembly objects” (SUBFAs, PARTs and FFs); the solid lines represent “part-of” relation; and the dashed lines represent other relationships. Subassembly (SUBFA) consists of parts (PARTs). A part can be thought of as an “assembly” of form features (FFs). The representation combines the strengths of a feature-based geometric model with those of object-oriented models. It not only contains the “part-of” relations between the parent object and the child object, but also includes a richer set of structural relations and a group of operational functions for assembly objects. In Section 3.1, there is further discussion on the definition of an assembly object, and detailed relations between assembly objects are presented in Section 3.2
Fig. 2. Feature-based, object-oriented hierarchical representation
3.1 Definition of Assembly Objects
In our work, an assembly object, O, is defined as a unique, identifiable entity in the following form:
O = (Oid, A, M, R) (1)
Where:
Oid is a unique identifier of an assembly object (O). A is a set of three-tuples, (t, a, v). Each a is called an attribute of O, associated with each attribute is a type,
t, and a value, v. M is a set of tuples, (m, tc1, tc2, %, tcn, tc). Each element of M is a function that uniquely identifies a method. The symbol m represents a method name; and methods define operations on objects. The symbol tci(i= 1, 2, %, n) specifies the argument type and tc specifies the returned value type.
R is a set of relationships among O and other assembly objects. There are six types of basic relationships between assembly objects, i.e. Part-of, SR, SC, DOF, Lts, and Fit.
Table 1 shows an assembly object of injection moulds, e.g. ejector. The ejector in Table 1 is formally specified as:
(ejector-pinF1, {(string, purpose, ‘ejecting moulding’), (string, material, ‘nitride steel’), (string, catalogFno, ‘THX’)},
{(checkFinterference(), boolean), (pocketFplate(), boolean)}, {(part-of ejectionFsys), (SR Align EBFplate), (DOF Tx, Ty)}).
In this example, purpose, material and catalogFno are attributes with a data type of string; checkFinterference and pocketFplate are member functions; and Part-of, SR and DOF are relationships.
3.2 Assembly Relationships
There are six types of basic relationships between assembly objects, Part-of, SR, SC, DOF, Lts, and Fit.
Part-of An assembly object belongs to its ancestor object.
SR Spatial relations: explicitly specify the positions and orientations of assembly objects in an assembly. For a component part, its spatial relationship is derived from spatial constraints (SC).
SC Spatial constraints: implicitly locate a component part with respect to the other parts.
DOF Degrees of freedom: are allowable translational/ rotational directions of motion after assembly, with or without limits.
Lts Motion limits: because of obstructions/interferences, the DOF may have unilateral or bilateral limits.
Fit Size constraint: is applied to dimensions, in order to maintain a given class of fit.
Among all the elements of an assembly object, the relation-ships are most important for assembly design. The relationships between assembly objects will not only determine the position of objects in an assembly, but also maintain the associativities between assembly objects. In the following sub-sections, we will illustrate the relationships at the same assembly level with the help of examples.
3.2.1 Relationships Between Form Features
Mould design, in essence, is a mental process; mould designers most of the time think on the level of real-world objects such as plates, screws, grooves, chamfers, and counter-bore holes. Therefore, it is necessary to build the geometric models of all product-independent parts from form features. The mould designer can easily change the size and shape of a part, because of the relations between form features maintained in the part representation. Figure 3(a) shows a plate with a counter-bore hole. This part is defined by two form features, i.e. a block and a counter-bore hole. The counter-bore hole (FF2) is placed with reference to the block feature FF1, using their local coordinates F2and F1, respectively. Equations (2)–(5) show the spatial relationships between the counter-bore hole (FF2) and the block feature (FF1). For form features, there is no spatial constraint between them, so the spatial relationships are specified directly by the designer. The detailed assembly relationships between two form features are defined as follows:
Fig. 3. Assembly relationships.
F2k= F1k (4)
r2F= r1F+ b22*F1j+ AF1*F1i (5)
DOF:
ObjFhasF1FRDOF(FF2, F2j)
The counter-bore feature can rotate about axis F2j.
LTs(FF2, FF1):
AF1, b11? 0.5*b21 (6)
Fit (FF2, FF1):
b22= b12 (7)
Where
F and r are the orientation and position vectors of features.
F1= (F1i, F1j, F1k), F2= (F2i, F2j, F2k).
bij is the dimension of form features, Subscript i ifeature number, j is dimension number.
AF1is the dimension between form features.
Equations (2)–(7) present the relationships between the form feature FF1 and FF2. These relationships thus determine the position and orientation of a form feature in the part. Taking the part as an assembly, the form feature can be considered as “components” of the assembly.
The choice of form features is based on the shape characteristics of product-independent parts. Because the form features provided by the Unigraphics CAD/CAM system [13] can meet the shape requirements of parts for injection moulds and the spatial relationships between form features are also maintained, we choose them to build the required part models. In addition to the spatial relationships, we must record LTs, Fits relationships for form features, which are essential to c
收藏