Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
By using fusion mesh, the deflection due to Corner effect can be isolated from total deflection when running wapage analysis, but with 3d mesh model to run wapage, there is no this option of Corner effect.
The question is if running warpage with 3d mesh model already consider the corner effect?
And which mesh model would be better to use for running warpage when we encounter the particular part with long side wall?
The corner effect is caused by differences between shrinkages in the in-plane and thickness direction on curved or angled parts.
2.5 D solvers treat the thickness direction differently over the in-plane so they need a special handler for the corner effect. In 3D the corner effect is obtained naturaly.
The question about the best analysis between 3D and 2.5 D is a complicated one, that is why Moldflow provides both options:
If we have a lot of chunky regions (length to thickness ratio is less than five) or a lot of unmatched elements on fusion mesh, then 3D is your friend
If you have a poor surface mesh to begin with (not "watertight", 3D meshing produces a lot of bad aspect ratio elements, etc.) you might want to use the fusion rather than spend a lot of effort cleaning the mesh
If you need a lot of elements across the thickness then 2.5D is better - we can easily go to 20 layers across the thickness, while on 3D, usually more than 10 layers means huge models (especially if the molding is very slender)
Otherwise, both analyses should give similar results
Yes this is correct. The corner effect is caused by thickness shrinkage been different from the in-plane shrinkage. In 2.5D simulation it requires separate calculations, in true 3D it is obtained automatically so far as the shrinkages are right.
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")