ON-LINE PREDICTION OF MOLDED PART PROPERTIES IN RIM-PROCESSING BY CONTROL OF CAVITY PRESSURE

Enno Henze, Walter Michaeli Institute for Plastics Processing (IKV), Aachen, Germany Abstract
The very short cross-linking start-time of high-speedRIM-systems used for automotive body applications leads to high demands on process control in order to guarantee a reproducible run of process. A method of controlling the RIM process using the course of the mold cavity pressure is developed. Characteristic process values calculated from the mold cavity pressure are correlated with part attributes. On the basis of the correlation analysis statistical process models are calculated which describe part attributes depending on the characteristic process values.

Objective
Due to the complexity of the production process and the dominant influence of the chemical raw material used the causes for the occurrence of process disturbances are difficult to describe. Therefore statistical process models, which describe quantitatively and on-line the influence of process-specific quantities on the manufacturing of microcellular PU-parts are developed. The investigations are focused on process quantities measured during the molding process, e.g. the course of the cavity pressure which is not used for process monitoring today.

Introduction
Large and medium series polyurethane (PU) parts are mainly used for automotive body applications as bumpers, spoilers, side panels and exterior trim parts. Improvements of economy in Reaction Injection Molding (RIM) especially in the processing fiberreinforced polyurethanes (RRIM) are achieved by reduction of cycle time using fast curing PU-systems (highspeed-RIM-systems). Such PU-Systems are characterized by a cross linking start-time of less than one second and a curing time of approx. 25 to 30 second (1). Due to the very short metering times the demands on process control increase extremely. A reproducible run of process can only be achieved by constant process parameters. Although in industrial production the process parameters are monitored by the machine control unit the run of process however has still not reached the optimal level. The quality target of prime importance in manufacturing large area automotive parts is the achievement of a class-A-surface, which can be painted without any followup treatment. In industrial praxis this target however cannot be realized over a longer period of time. Since surface defects like porosities and pin holes can only be recognized after the painting process, time intensive repair work is required in order to achieve a perfect surface quality. The formation of surface defects in RRIMpart manufacturing is analyzed in various investigations, which show that the cavity pressure is the determining parameter for the surface quality.

Monitoring of process quantities

The basic prerequisite for the monitoring of the cavity pressure course is its significant influence on the part properties to be controlled. One of the main difficulties is the definition of criteria which indicate the occurrence of process disturbances. The check of process quantities on single significant values like upper or lower tolerance limits is not successful, since there are various causes for reaching the limit which often do not correlate obviously with the part imperfections observed. The division of the manufacturing process into the three subprocesses mixing and metering, molding and demolding makes clear that the process quantities which can be measured in the mold cavity like cavity pressure and mold temperature are influenced by many parameters. Additionally the courses of the process quantities do not only depend on time but also on the processing technique, the machine technology and on the point where they are measured (Figure 1). Figure 2 illustrates the required injection pressure of an experimental mold at the end of the injection phase calculated by the simulation program CADMOULD-3D. Since the cavity can only be filled to a filling rate of 95 to 98 % the required filling pressure does not increase monotonously over the whole flow path. Critical part areas can be detected near the gate and at the end of the flow path. A high pressure level near the gate leads to the effect that the gas loading becomes ineffective since the gas can not be solved sufficiently out of the reaction mixture. The consequences are sink marks. On the other hand a low pressure level at the end of the flow path causes the occurrence of pin holes at the surface of the part. The process

must be performed in such a way that a sufficient pressure level can be achieved in the whole cavity and held over a certain period of time. The difference is made clear in Figure 3, which shows two calculated courses of the cavity pressure in a distance of 1 m length of flow path. Additional problems in monitoring process quantities result from the fact that a correlation between the time history of the courses of the process quantities and a discrete part property has to be established. However a correlation in means of a regression model can only be fixed between discrete values. In order to solve this problem a method developed at IKV for the injection molding of thermoplastics and elastomers is adapted to the needs of RIM processing (2, 3). The method is based on the idea to describe the course of process quantities by discrete characteristic values like maxima, minima, integrals or gradients which are correlated with part properties. In case of a reliable process model changes in part properties can be recognized by changes of the characteristic process values. In means of adapting the method two main distinctions have to be drawn between the injection molding and the RIM process. Due to the very short metering times and the simultaneous mixing process a variation of the injection speed during the injection phase cannot be realized. Furthermore the cavity pressure and the mold temperature is only determined by the metering and curing process. With exception to the holding-pressure-technique the curing process itself cannot be influenced by machine input parameters after metering. In the investigations discussed below it is shown how the course of the cavity pressure can be described by characteristic process values and how a correlation between the machine input parameters, the process quantities and the resulting part properties can be established.

caused by mold breathing and venting bore-holes lead to volume variations in the cavity. The gas loading and the temperature of the reaction mixture influence the mold filling behavior and the foaming process, which means that both parameters effect the course of the cavity pressure. The investigations were performed with a high-speedRIM-system of a cross-linking start time below one second and a curing time of 30 s. The experimental mold was a simple plate (200 x 200 x 5 mm3) equipped with a pressure sensor near the gate. The plate was injected using a lateral fan gate. The test parts were produced on high-pressure recirculation plant with a gas loading unit and a nozzle needle controlled mixing head with an internal outlet throttle.

Definition of characteristic process values

The following independent values were calculated from the measured machine input quantities:

average gas loading over the whole cycle xm, average volume flow of both components over the injection time Qpoly, Qiso, average component temperature of both components Tpoly, Tiso, injection time tinjection, filling rate F according to Equation (1) and reaction temperature TM according to Equation (2).

Figure 4 shows the calculated values and the according setpoint. The results indicate that the process values do not achieve exactly their setpoints. This illustrates the problem of achieving a stationary point-of-operation in a limited period of time. Despite these fluctuations the standard deviation of the measurements is on a low level, which means that the process correlation can be detected with a high statistical significance. The characteristic process values calculated from the course of the cavity pressure are shown in Figure 5. The flow front reaches the pressure sensor at point pInStart. From now on the pressure rises. At point pInEnd the filling process is terminated, the pressure continues rising due to the expansion of the gas. At point pCPStart the cleaning piston moves forward until its front position is reached in pCPEnd. The additional compression caused by the motion of the cleaning piston leads to a further pressure rise pRSDiff. After that point the pressure rises slowly due to the expansion of the gas until the pressure maximum is reached in pMax. Now the pressure decreases since the curing process comes to an end and the part is cooled.

Experimental analysis
An central-composite-experimental design is used for variation of those process parameters which can fluctuate during the manufacturing process or which show a decisive influence on the course of the cavity pressure. The parameters analyzed in the experimental studies are the mold filling ratio F which is a function of the volume flows of the components and the injection time, the gas loading x, and the temperature of the reaction mixture TG:


    

 
      


   
  





The filling rate is of decisive importance for the pressure level in the cavity. Increasing filling rates lead to higher cavity pressure. Although injection time and volume flows can be controlled exactly the occurrence of flash

Calculation of the process models

Due to the small dimensions of the test geometry and the short flow path surface defects cannot be expected.

Therefore the average density calculated from the weight is taken as the relevant part property. The calculation of the process models consists of two steps. First the characteristic process values are correlated with the average density. On basis of the correlation analysis a stepwise multiple regression is performed in order to determine a mathematical equation which describes the density as a function of the characteristic process values. The following different kinds of process models are discussed:



  
    
  
   

  
  



      
      


 

Figure 6 to 8 illustrate the comparison between the measured and the model predicted part properties. The lefthanded chart shows the regression diagram with the prediction interval, the accuracy R2 and the Fisher-value F. The right-handed diagram displays the measured and the predicted density versus the test number. The comparison points out a significant difference between the different approaches. All models are characterized by a high accuracy R2 in principle but there are still some main differences which have to mentioned. The model which is only based on characteristic process values indicates the lowest accuracy R2. The model based on machine input parameters is quite acceptable. The additional integration of characteristic process values leads to the highest accuracy R2 and to an even 30 % smaller prediction interval. Therefore it is possible to predict the density to an accuracy of 1 % with a probability of 95 %.

process model on the basis of machine input values, process model on the basis of characteristic process values and
process model on the basis of machine input parameters and characteristic process values. In industrial production the feedback values of machine input parameters are usually measured by the machine control unit and proved whether they are within the tolerance limits or not. A conclusion according to the effect of the actual feedback values on the part properties is not drawn since this requires a systematic process analysis by means of experimental design. Therefore the first possibility represents a further development of the hitherto process control:




    
    
    
    

   
        



Conclusion
The method presented establishes the on-line monitoring of the RIM process by statistical process models. Therefore a systematic procedure on the basis of experimental design is required. Although the method has been verified using a simple test geometry there are no restrictions for complex part structures and additional part properties. Although a prediction of molded part properties can be performed by statistical process models based on measured input parameters the results point out that process quantities measured during the molding process have to be taken into account in order to achieve a reliable process monitoring.

The second approach is based exclusively on process quantities measured in the mold:




  
  
  
 
 




Actually values calculated from the cavity pressure are used. But it is also possible to use additional process quantities, e.g. the course of the mold temperature. This approach guarantees that process disturbances which influence the process after metering and mold filling are indicated and visualized. Since the characteristic process values calculated above correlate definitely with the machine input quantities fluctuations of the machine input quantities are also taken into account by this approach. The third approach consists of a combination of the first and the second approach. In this case machine- and mold-based process quantities are taken into account by the model equation. This procedure is sensitive to fluctuations of process parameters as well as to disturbances during mold filling and curing:

References
(1) Braun, H.-J:, Eyerer, P.,"PUR-RIM- und -RRIM Technologie: Fortschritte und Wirtschaftlichkeit", Kunststoffe 78 (1988) 10, p. 991-996 (2) Michaeli, W., Henze, E., "Reproduzierbare Prozefhrung bei der Verarbeitung von Polyurethanen mit Hilfe statistischer Prozemodelle", AiF research report, IKV, Aachen, 1997 (3) Gierth, M.,"Methoden und Hilfsmittel zur prozenahen Qualittssicherung beim Spritzgieen von Thermoplasten", doctoral thesis, RWTH Aachen, 1991

Figure 1:

Process quantities in RIM-processing

injection phase

15

near the gate at end of the flow path filling rate : 90 % gas loading : 50 % T : 45 C
mixture

cavity pressure [10 5 Pa]

pressure rise caused be cleaning piston

10

pressure balance in the cavity

0 0 1 2 3 time [s] 4 5

Figure 2:

Calculated filling pressure of an experimental mold

Figure 3:

Calculated courses of cavity pressure

setpoint measured value

55 50 48 density
[103 kg/m3] gas loading [%] 50

1,10

measured value

100 filling rate F [%]

1,05

[C]

95

90 44 85 0 20 40 test number 60 80 42 0 20 40 test number 60 80

46

45

1,00

40

0,95

35 0 20 40 test number 60 80

0,90 0 20 40 test number 60 80

Figure 4:

Machine input values and resulting part density

7 cavity pressure p [10 5 Pa] 6 5

p
CPEnd

1,10
Max

regression 95% prediction

measured  [103 kg/m3]

1,05

4
p

1,00

3
p

CPDiff

Expans

0,95

2
p

CPStart

R 2 = 92 % F = 264

1
p

InEnd

0,90 0,90

0,95

1,00

1,05

1,10

MaxInt

calculated  [103 kg/m 3]

InInt

InStart

4 6 time [s]

10

12

1,10 density  [103 kg/m3]

measured predicted

p p p p p p p p p

InStart InEnd CPStart CPEnd CPDiff Max Expans InInt MaxInt

flow front reaches pressure sensor max. injection pressure start of cleaning piston stop of cleaning piston pressure rise caused by cleaning piston max. cavity pressure pressure rise caused by reaction Integral from t=0 to p Integral from p
Max InEnd

1,05

1,00

0,95

0,90 0 20 40 test number 60 80

Figure 5:

Characteristic process values calculated from cavity pressure

Figure 7:

Process model calculated from characteristic process values

1,10 measured  [103 kg/m3]

pegression 95% prediction

1,10 measured  [103 kg/m3]

regression 95% prediction

1,05

1,05

1,00

1,00

0,95

R2 = 98 % F = 434

0,95

R2 = 99 % F = 837

0,90 0,90

0,95

1,00

1,05

1,10

0,90 0,90

0,95

1,00

1,05

1,10

calculated  [103kg/m3] 1,10 density  [103 kg/m3]

measured predicted

calculated  [g/cm 3] 1,10 density  [103 kg/m3]

measured predicted

1,05

1,05

1,00

1,00

0,95

0,95

0,90 0 20 40 test number 60 80

0,90 0 20 40 test number 60 80

Figure 6:

Process model on the basis of machine input values

Figure 8:

Process model calculated from machine input and characteristic process values