Moldflow Insight Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Moldflow Insight Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Moldflow Insight topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Influence of Cooling Time to Warpage Results.

4 REPLIES 4
Reply
Message 1 of 5
xmabi2
576 Views, 4 Replies

Influence of Cooling Time to Warpage Results.

Hi all,

 

i have a question based on real experience. I did an analysis on an existing piece.

 

During the real process I tried to use different cooling time and the result was that long cooling time reduce the deflection of the piece,as expected. Obviously, all others parameters were kept unchanged (packing phase and filling phase).

 

The deflection measured was about 0,9 mm for the short cooling time (9 sec) and about 0,5 for the long cooling time (50 sec).

 

But, when i try to simulate this on MoldFlow i found different result. I realized two different analysis with the same parameters except cooling time, like reality. The analisyses results show me about 0,8 mm for the short cooling time and about 0.75 mm for the long cooling time. 

 

This is very strange for me.... There is an explanation for this difference?

 

Thanks in advance and excuse me for my broken english!!!

 

Marco.

4 REPLIES 4
Message 2 of 5
HugoHerrera7042
in reply to: xmabi2

Hi Marco,

do you have the mold and waterlines in your model? if so, how are you setting up your water? are you matching the flow rate you are seeing in your process? do you have a way to correlate the temperature on the part at ejection, with yours? (thermal imager)

 

i would also focus on refine your mesh, are you dealing with a 3D mesh? fusion? midplane?

 

you are though seeing the same warpage trend, the little details like the packing pressures, fill time, melt temperature, mesh quality, water inlet temperatures, i think will get you on the right track.

 

FYI, also check if your material has CRIMS data...as these materials tend to have a more closer approach of the warpage 'numbers' than the rest...

 

good luck!

 

Hugo Herrera

Visteon

Mty, Mexico

 

 

Message 3 of 5
xmabi2
in reply to: HugoHerrera7042

Hi Hugo,

thank you very much for your reply.

 

In my study i use a very fine 3d mesh, so i think this is not the possible reason to the fault results.

 

I also modeled the cooling channels and I think to use correct temperature.

 

The material that i used is crims caracterized.

 

I tried also a different material but with the same result... The analysis with long cycle time has similar deflection to analysis with short cycle time. I used 9 sec and 50 sec.

 

I modeled the mold by "geometry - mold surface" and now i have a doubt: in this case the cooling time considers the piece into the mold (forced into the shape cavity) or this time is only a cooling time without considering the mold?

 

Thanks,

 

Marco.

Message 4 of 5
HugoHerrera7042
in reply to: xmabi2

ok it seems that your 3D mesh and your material are fine (just out of curiosity, what material is? amorphous, semi-crystalline?

 

what I would do in your case, is to keep a practical mind, after all, you are matching the warpage trend.

 

i would focus ONLY on the process settings of the cooling phase:

1. mold surface TARGET temperature, is the temperature you want your cavity to be, not your water temperature.

2. set your cavity water ~10C below this target temp. and the core water at ~15C below the same target.

3. find out the real pressure or gpm flow rate on your waterlines.

4. make some runs with AUTOMATIC cycle, to find out what the optimal coolling time is.

5. evaluate with 9s and 50s the temperature and time to reach ejection temperature through the thickness of the part (making some cut sections). this to see if the part is indeed below the ejection temperature on all cases.

 

if these steps doesn't work, i think the part is probably experiencing some other stresses from ejection that may not be captured by the injection molding simulation. you can evaluate the way the part is ejected from the mold...

 

good luck!

 

Hugo Herrera

Visteon

Mty, Mexico

Message 5 of 5
xmabi2
in reply to: HugoHerrera7042

Hi and thank you again,

the material that i used is a PP reinforced by 25% glass fiber plus 15% mineral fiber.

I also tried to all your suggestions without good results....

Probably You are right......the ejection of the piece amplify the deflection... and in the case with short time cycle (in the real process) the ejector is more aggressive... I must check the ejectors system and validate this hypothesis.

Thank You very much.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report