About 500cm³ of air will pass out of the cavity through the air venting and the (air) resistance will simply be too great. Although there is venting around the entire cavity, it is not enough.
After about 12 hours of simulation we can safely say what the problem is. The geometry of the part is simple and it becomes less than 400,000 tetras which makes simulations go fast. Increased injection speed gives more problems while the problems vary with the material batches. It has never worked really well and the rejection has occasionally suddenly passed 10-15%. The part in rubber has in fact been manufactured around the clock 5 days a week for longer than 10 years. It is circular with a direct gate or sprue gate in the center. You cannot fail to manufacture this part? The part is so simple and thus it has the best conditions for being easily manufactured. The wall thickness is about 5 mm and it is a cylindrical mold. The finished injection molded part should later be further processed and therefore the gate is centered directly on the gable. One example we encountered when it comes to moldflow simulation is this: The injection mold design has a cavity and the part looks like a large flat-bottomed drinking glass. Then it is significantly harder to decide what needs to be done in order to make it work as intended. Your details do not get the right strength for example and you do not know why. You may have too high injection speed or a poor runner system and the stress will cause material degradation. If you have problems with stress (shear rate) it is often not that obvious. A burn mark is visible and you realize something is wrong. You may get a burn mark on your part because there is air, which has been trapped in the cavity. Sometimes the limits are exceeded and it becomes clearer that something is wrong.
Stressing the material or the fact that the mold has too little venting are examples of the above mentioned. In many cases, you cannot see with your eye that something is wrong or that it only occurs occasionally and you do not understand why. In addition, there are many parameters that are not as visible, clear or easy to measure. There's nothing to say about it because this is pure fact. Everything from reducing the number of prototypes, launching new products on the market faster or optimizing injection molded components. There are many arguments to why it is good with mold flow simulation or mold flow analysis. To set a target value, we can say that when the wall thickness ratio exceeds 1 to 4, you should use 3D simulation. 3D simulation fits thick wall thicknesses or complicated geometries. A 3D mesh simulation takes longer and sets higher demands on your hardware, but you get a better result. The 3D mesh uses tetrahedral elements (tetras) that have four nodes to describe a solid element. We always use 3D meshing because most geometries in the moldflow simulations we do must have a 3D mesh for a reliable result. Development has gone a long way, especially when it comes to meshing. Many positive things have happened to Autodesk Moldflow Insight since then. We have used Autodesk Moldflow Insight almost a decade now and mostly with reactive molding (thermoset) or rubber injection. Best Mold Components Component Creator Injection molding softwareīenefits from moldflow analysis software and moldflow simulation software.
0 kommentar(er)
