• PT Youtube
  • PT Facebook
  • PT Linkedin
  • PT Twitter
2/25/2020 | 1 MINUTE READ

Injection Molding: Simulation Factors in Material Compression and Machine Response During Injection

Facebook Share Icon LinkedIn Share Icon Twitter Share Icon Share by EMail icon Print Icon

Moldex3D version R17 increases prediction of filling speeds and pressures.

Share

Facebook Share Icon LinkedIn Share Icon Twitter Share Icon Share by EMail icon Print Icon

The latest version of Moldex3D injection molding simulation from CoreTech System in Taiwan includes two factors intended to increase the accuracy of mold-filling predictions. First, Moldex3D R17, released last year, takes into account the compressibility of the melt during screw recovery and injection. Since the melt acts somewhat like a spring, disregarding this factor will result in a gap between the simulated and actual flow rates through the nozzle, runner and mold.

 

Moldex3D simulation provides a closer match to experimental results than conventional simulation

 

Including material compression and machine response in Moldex3D simulation provides a closer match to experimental results than conventional simulation without those two factors.

 

 

Second, conventional CAE predicts melt flow through the tooling based on settings for injection speeds, without considering the machine response—i.e., the response speed of the control loop to attempt to satisfy the speed settings throughout the injection profile. CoreTech offers instructions on how to set up and conduct experiments to quantify the machine response, and the new version of Moldex3D lets users set the filling speed and pressure response as part of the simulation parameters.

The accompanying graph shows the difference in simulation based on standard CAE inputs alone vs. the results of actual experiments and Moldex3D with melt compression and machine response (“machine integration”) included.

RELATED CONTENT

  • The New Dimension in Mold Simulation

    Keep an eye on the increasing prominence of so-called “3D” mold analysis. Two vendors of simulation software from Europe and Asia think it’s the best solution for a big proportion of injection molded parts. Established U.S. suppliers aren’t so sure. In any case, the capabilities of both 3D and standard 2.5D simulation are expanding rapidly.

  • CAD Evolution For 3D Mold Design

    Specially tailored packages of 3D computer-aided design software have been available to injection mold designers for at least a decade.

  • INJECTION MOLDING: The Importance of Nominal Wall For Lightweighting Molded Parts

    Establishing a nominal wall is one of the most important decisions an engineer makes when designing parts. Understanding how design changes will impact the manufacturing process is critical to ensure the part performs as expected.