Warpage Result comparision

[prabu27]

hello everyone,

   i have done the same analyis with dual domain and 3D meshing but there is a huge variation in warpage results .  i want to know which is correct. My part is thin walled part , once i give less injection time with Dual domain mesh part is filled 100%  For the same part  if i increase the injection time  part is not filled 100% but warpage getting reduced..

 i have done the same analysis with 3D meshing the part is 100% filled  with higher injection time also .but there is huge variation in warpage results dual domain and 3D .. then can i go for which meshing?  dual domain or 3D?

which result is correct?

because our customer want to control the warpage in Z dirction within 0.2mm .  but in dual domain meshing we are not able  reach 0.2mm,

but 3D meshing we are easily reaching 0.16mm ...

i am not sure whichone is correct ?

but now i am not able to answer my customer

please anyone reply me .. here i have attached the comparision

 Prabu.K

[prabu27]

[phammer]

Ok many questions.

1. What warpage quality is your material? gold silver or bronze?

2. The material. is it amorph or semi kristalline?

3. do you have cooling lines in your simulation?

4. How big is match mesh in DD?

Please answer.

Second. For thin walled parts sometimes it could be that DD is more precise than 3D because you could have more layers in DD. But if your part have a more complex structure you should use 3D. 

If you use DD is your match mach ok, more than 90%. otherwise use 3D.  if you can use DD it would be best you have a material with CRIMS data. 

more later. 

Greeting Philipp

[prabu27]

hi Philipp, 1. The warpage quality is Gold 2. material is semi crystalline 3. No cooling lines in that part 4. The mesh match % in DD mesh is 72.4% and reciprocal % is 66.7% also the material name is Durethan DP BKV 60 H2.0 EF with 60% glass filled with CRIMS data. the part have some complex areas near the hesitation happening areas. Thank you for your reply Prabu.K

[HugoHerrera7042]

Hi,

mesh match ratios are very poor for DD analysis...try reducing the edge length of your model and re-mesh again, this time with the goal of reaching a 90% ratio (at least 85%). if this is not possible, I will go with the 3D model.

Also, if the part has a lot of thickness variations and attachments, keep in mind that if it does not follow at least a 4:1 width to thickness ratio in local areas, it is recommended to go with 3D mesh.

Good luck!

Hugo H.