topic C+F+P+W vs F+P+W.? in Moldflow Insight Forum

C+F+P+W vs F+P+W.?

praphotSYZN3 — Wed, 27 Nov 2024 05:06:17 GMT

Hi anyone

1.When do I use the C+F+P+W or F+P+W analysis sequence?

2.Why is separated C+F+P+W and F+P+W in the analytical sequence.?

Could you please give me some advice.?

Re: C+F+P+W vs F+P+W.?

bernor_mf — Wed, 27 Nov 2024 05:59:41 GMT

@praphotSYZN3

Hi,

1) Basically you use CFPW, when you have mold cooling circuits and to analyze and evaluate the mold cooling system, and understand how the cooling affects warpage.

In FPW you use a mold surface temperature that will be the same for mold surface and all around the cavity surface.

In CFPW the temperature of mold surface is calculated in Cool analysis. Mold surface temperature will then vary.
It uses the cooling inlet temperature, to iterate to the solution of mold surface temperature.
The inlet temperature is often 10-20C below aimed mold surface temperature.
The cooling inlet also have an Re of 10.000 to ensure turbulent flow.

2) So the reason it is separated in the analysis sequence is that Cool is a separate solver that calculates mold surface temperature, that will vary.

If you have unfilled semi-crystalline material, it will show more difference CFPW vs. FPW.

Then volumetric shrinkage and cooling difference are usually then major causes.

If filled semi-crystalline material, and higher content such as 25-30% glass fiber and higher, the fiber orientation will be a stronger driver. Here cooling difference probably has lower impact.

If you need to run a Cool simulation not having exact mold design , you could create a simplified cooling layout, just to get an understanding and hint of how cooling influences.

Cooling Methods within Moldflow Insight: Part 1

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Berndt

Re: C+F+P+W vs F+P+W.?

praphotSYZN3 — Fri, 29 Nov 2024 02:44:04 GMT

Dear Mr.bernor
Thank you for your answer.
I have a question about CFPW and FPCW, how are they different and what order should I choose for the analysis between the two?
Please suggest to me again.

Re: C+F+P+W vs F+P+W.?

bernor_mf — Fri, 29 Nov 2024 06:51:08 GMT

@praphotSYZN3

Hi,

First, there is no sequence of FPCW.
I assume you mean FCFPW , Fill+Cool+Fill+Pack+Warp, analysis sequence , right?

Now, CFPW , Cool+Fill+Pack+Warp, is where Cool starts with cavity instantaneously filled with melt as melt temperature set.
The starting point for the Cool iterations.

If you do a preceding simulation of Fill then Cool , FCFPW , Fill+Cool+Fill+Pack+Warp,

it will use the melt temperatures variations during filling as input to Cool.
This will then be starting point for the Cool iterations.

In general the melt temperature variations should be kept with relatively low variations.
The general rule is 2-5C.
Hard to accomplish many times, filling profile might help.
Anyway, this means low melt temperature variations, and more efficient to use CFPW , Cool+Fill+Pack+Warp.
This is also the recommendation of today.

If I recall correctly there were discussions way back then which would give best result in terms of Warp.
And I think it ended up with to use CFPW analysis sequence as recommended analysis sequence.

Anyway, I am basically always using CFPW , Cool+Fill+Pack+Warp, today, and that would be my recommendation.

Note: Those available analysis sequences are for Midplane and Dual Domain, DD, mesh types.

3D does not have this option , always Cool + the sequence,

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Berndt