Autodesk Simulation Moldflow Insight

[#1]

Is there any study that concludes the mesh needs to be random in pattern and not highly aligned on surface to provide a better warpage solution? 

Using Moldflow to mesh CAD generates a random tria pattern which I was told is good to provide a more stable solution.  The flip side are highly aligned mesh from third party software that looks like a very structured quad mesh, and then split to trias. All of the elements are aligned in rows based on the geometry of the part, and look very neat.

The reason I ask, I have part that was meshed very neat and the warpage prediction is wrong.  I then mesh the native CAD in Moldflow and the warpage prediction is correct on direction now, and only off on magnitude.  This is the same on the Dual domain part, and 3d meshed part.  

I suspect the high alignment of elements in rows is causing a problem in performing the structural analysis aspect on warpage, and with the trias aligned, it can artificially bend on the rows of nodes, and in this case, the wrong direction.

Don K.

[#2]

Don,

This is an important question, and one I'm surprised that no Autodesk personnel have attempted to answer.  We can all explore this, but I think that Autodesk should give us a definitive "best practice" guideline for this.

Could this be a case in which large deflection 3D analysis should be used?  If the answer is so sensitive to mesh, perhaps that is why. 

Very best regards,

Jim McGuire

[#3]

yes...Right angle tria elments ( i.e create quad elements first and then split them in to two tria element, which create two right angle tria elements) are not preferrable for structural analysis/ i.e warpage analysis.

.But moldow tech team never ever commented on that to support this comment.

I may be wrong.. If they say same.

[#4]

I.e equilateral triangles are preferred......