4.5 Article

Enhanced bidirectional ultraprecise single point inverted cutting of right triangular prismatic retroreflectors

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2017.12.002

关键词

Automotive retroreflector fabrication; Corner-cube retroreflectors; Ultraprecise single point inverted cutting; Right triangular prism retroreflectors; Cutting strategy; Optical performance; Cutting mechanics

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To meet the demands of an increasingly competitive market, automakers are continuously looking for aesthetically appealing and performant lighting components. Among them, retroreflectors constitute the core functional structure of the taillights equipping virtually every vehicle available on the market. For many decades, automotive retroreflectors were locked into the traditional corner-cube (CC) design that is primarily a consequence of the conventional pin-bundling technology underlying their fabrication. However, more recent research developments have identified ultraprecise single point inverted cutting (USPIC) and right triangular prisms (RTP) as potential substitutes for pin-bundling and corner-cube geometry, respectively. By following up the prior work in this area, the main objective of the present study was to propose an enhanced bidirectional USPIC approach that is capable to overcome the shortcomings of the previously employed cutting strategies. The enhanced bidirectional strategy was validated through the fabrication of an array of 11.3 by 11.3 mm consisting of 613 functional RTP structures. The USPIC-generated RTP array was characterized by optical performances comparable to those of a larger-sized CC-based retroreflective surface. Furthermore, the profile of the cutting forces associated with RTP facet generation was correlated in detail with diamond-tool kinematics. Overall, the present progress provides enough incentives for the future development of the USPIC technology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据