Mismatch in Warpage

[vgvimalkanth]

Hello, I have run Moldflow Simulation for a part using both Midplane and 3D mesh. The gating, process settings, and material are same for both files. The material has CRIMS data. Both the simulation was run in the same machine using the same solver (Autodesk Moldflow Insight 2019). But I observe difference in the Deflection results with the two simulations. Please refer to the below image.

Can someone please explain me the difference in the Deflection results? Thanks!

 

[h-fujitaDXJU5]

Hi.

I will write general information about warpage simulation.

Warpage prediction is still state-of-the-art technology. Almost all minor version-up have included warpage prediction improvement recent several years. I think there is no ground truth of warpage prediction.

Generally speaking, midplane mesh is suitable for large parts and 3D mesh is suitable for thicker parts or variate thickness parts.  Midplane is not good at describing ribs/bosses/local thickness variation but it can use CRIMS compensation parameters.

 3D mesh simulation uses much more computer resources so there is some limitation in simulation.

Visco elastic behavior is one example.

And some material parameters cannot measure by testing device. One of those parameter is PVT relations.

Accurate PVT is only measured by slower and larger sample, but injection molding's cooling rate is very high, so we cannot take "real" and accurate PVT relations by testing device. Tm(frozen temperature)  testing has same cooling rate problem.

CRIMS also compensate these material testing problem.

Regards.

[mason.myers]

Hello @vgvimalkanth ,

Please note that we use different flow solvers between Midplane and 3D, as well as different warp solvers.  CRIMS would be used for Midplane/Dual Domain warpage calculations while 3D uses the mechanical properties/CTE.  Are the 3D mechanical data tested for this material or supplemental?

Mason