Often, after starting a typical Cool(FEM)+Fill+Pack+Warp sequence, and while still at an early stage (i.e. Cool(FEM) running), one may change his/her mind on some options re further-on behavior; for example demand Warp to isolate the components. But when you change ANYTHING in Process Settings - regarless on whether it would really affect the current analysis state - we're presented with this familiar "Create copy", "Delete Results", or "Cancel" warning window. Less expereinced useers get frightened off by the necessity of running the sequence from scratch, so they cancel and do not introduse the desired changes...
It would be nice if the program "considered" the situation first, and only display the warning window if the user-introduced changes would invalidate the already produced/being produced results, or require the running analysis to alter the way it's executing. We the more experienced users know that if none of the above would happen, pressing "Delete" will actuallyNOT stop the sequence while introducing our changes to the way the consecutive analyses should execute.
Do you consider to introduce a more intelligent, context-sensitive use of the "Create copy", "Delete Results", or "Cancel" dialog window?
A proposal to simplify modeling Baffle features in a cooling system.
Currently, every baffle requires two separate lines to create a baffle. Users can either make a small V configuration or the two lines can be coincident. However, if at any time the nodes get merged on the baffle line then the solver interprets the baffle as a dead-end. This issue is especially problematic if using HyperMesh to generate a Moldflow mesh file.
Eliminate the second line needed to generate the baffle. The necessary pressure drop should be automatically calculated by the solver. The solver should also be able to tell which direction the water is moving based on the coolant inlet boundary condition. This is similar to other softwares on the market.
There must be a provision to simulation cooling for ' thermoplastic overmolding' process
i.e 'Cool + fill+ pack + over molding fill + overmolding pack + warp' option
Probably Autodesk team should develope the same.
A SimCFD license is required for using Channel (3D) elements in a Cool (FEM) analysis.
It should be available without need of seeparate licence. It allowed user to import cooling channals 3D model
directly from tool design and do analysis.
Hello all together,
to speed up the simulation, hybrid meshes would be advantageous.
For example Sigmasoft takes voxal meshes and this mesh is more tolerat of CAD problems. The calculation time for a compled Mould is very fast.
To decrease the preparation time and computation time hybrid meshes can help.
It would be possible to simulat very large models in 3D.
Tiger strips/a surface defect, which often occurs in the injection molding, is characterized by a cyclic sequence of shiny and matt stripes at the flow front.
The physical cause of the occurrence of tiger stripes, is the re-melting of already frozen outer layers the thermally damaged material reaches the surface and leads to spots with a matter shininess in appearance.
It is possible with calculated plots with some relations, which is being used by some raw material suppliers.
Mold flow should introduce Tiger strips occurrence plot.
An Option to Dump results in between the analysis
In Sigma soft (competitor software similar to mold flow),
there is a option to dump the analysis in between, then stop the analysis. The, next time you open the study and re- launch the analysis, it will start analysis from where you stopped it.
In mold flow, we need similar option
i.e In Between; we can stop analysis instead of aborting and close the study. Then,we can re-run from, where we had stopped it. So that we can save time, incase we need to abort the analysis & re-run after some time,
Everytime that I start SIM360 Moldflow the mesher and the solver are set by default as "in cloud". It would be very useful to have the possibility of setting them in as "locally" by default.
we are not gettting 'Sink marks estimate' results in "3D - overmolding / 2 shot molding analysis"
I am not sure, whether it is available in 2014.
Moldflow should introduce 'Sink marks estimate' results in "3D - overmolding / 2 shot molding analysis"
moldflow should be able to estimate the time for analysis.
when ever, we are launch an analysis, moldflow should be able to pop up tentative time to complete the analysis.
it should be based RAM/ memory / processor availble/solver settings and number of nodes/elements
when defining a sequential gating and the valve gates are controlled by flow front and trigger nodes and the user is changing f.e. a location of a injection location AND is using "global merge" the nodes are renumbered.
afterwards all the triggernodes have to be defined completely new.
when simulating big parts with lots of injection locations this can be annoying.
or the filling behaves in a unexpected way because the triggernodes have changed. when simulation time is very long this is recognised to late.
solution 1.: lock the trigger node numbering. so the trigger node keep their number, even when all nodes are renumbered
solution 2: highlite the triggernode location by f.e. an clearly visible arrow
solution 3: change the way to define triggernodes or triggerlocations.
at the moment the user has to "remember" the trigger node. then swich to the property of the valve gate or change to the valve gate timing tab and enter the trigger node.
this could be more comfortable. like f.e. after highliting a node and rightclick, a menue could appear and the user could define "define this node for valve gate XY"
I'd like to see a throughput result for 3D flow analysis, as it sums up the Flow rate, beams result for the whole analysis.
Otherwise I would have to do Dual Domain flow analysis in parallel just to get this result. Or did I miss anything?
in reality before you can start with injection moulding the mould has to be heatet up to working temperaturen.
And then starts the injection molding process.
With bad cooling layout you already get here very different mold surface temperatures.
Today cool fem starts with constant temperature in the mold and it calculates with cooling of the melt even when you start it from 25°C.
And this is not real.
So it would be very good if there is a new analysis sequence in moldflow, perhaps called mold heating,
that calculates the temperature just in the mould prior starting a cool fem analysis from production start up and uses the temperature
distribution in the mold as starting boundary conditions for cool fem from production start up.
- more precise results for cool fem
- more precise warpage results
- getting real information how long it takes to get the mold to working temperature
- and how long it takes in njection molding to get a stable process
I would like an 'All' option for Intermediate Results in the Fill+Pack solver parameters. I find it frustrating that solver timesteps are solved but not outputted for results. As it stands, you either need to:
- Use the 'Write at constant intervals' option, which will miss timesteps for fine timestepping.
- Use the 'Write at specific times' option, but this requires us to know when all timesteps will occur before running the analysis, or to assume a very small time interval.
I understand that computing resources will be tied up for results output and file storage, but this option would still be of use to me.