I have been running both dual domain and 3D side by side. At this point I am seeing large diffference in warpage predictions (in more parts than what is attached) and am wondering which solver version I should be presenting to the customer. This particular analysis entailed cooling, flow, pack, fiber and warp. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
we had similar problems with DD and 3D mesh results differences.
You should also compare other results - inj. pressure especially.
Here in discussion you can find, that 3D mesh is prefered.
Also our plastic material supplier recomend to use only 3D mesh.
Agreed - we'd only ever use 3d meshed models for anything for presentation purposes - our toolmakers perfer it as well - DD in ok for "first-pass" analysis, we typically only use it for checking models now.
My experience has been that 3D warpage is more dependable than Dual Domain. At times, Dual Domain has resulted in significantly lower warpage than a midplane model analysis, even though the two should be close. Perhaps it would be informative to construct a midplane model and see where that falls...
We now try to use 3D for warpage predictions whenever we can.
I don't agree with the others.
I have a big experience with Moldflow (around 100 studies by year).
But I don't think that 3D is more reliable then DD.
I noticed sometimes big differences between 3D and DD deformations.
In fact the material data used for the warp simulations are not the same.
With some plastics, the variations are important, not with others.
You should try different grades of your material.
The taking into account of the ribs could also explain your trouble.
I already met a case close to yours (part with ribs, material with fibres, big differences between DD and 3D).
Finally the reality was between the 2 predictions.
Maybe you could make a simulation with a Midplane model.