You are on page 1of 49

Study on effect of CRIMS data on warpage

simulation and possibility of using supplement


CRIMS data
Speaker Name: Venkatesh Aungadu Kuppuswamy
Speaker Title : Senior Staff Materials Engineer, Motorola Solutions Inc, Plantation, FL

2012 Autodesk
Content

What is CRIMS?
Overview of the Experiment
Part, Material and Process Selection
Moldflow Simulation Results
Injection Molding Study
Comparing Actual and Simulation Data
Conclusions
Acknowledgements

2012 Autodesk
What is CRIMS

CRIMS = Corrected Residual In-Mold Stress

Moldflow Simulation uses the following material parameters:

1. Viscosity
2. PVT
3. Thermal
conductivity
4. Specific heat
capacity A1, A2 and A3 coefficients modify the parallel
5. Shrinkage (CRIMS)
shrinkage

A4, A5 & A6 modify perpendicular shrinkage

A1, A2, A4 and A5 are scaling factors, where as A3


and A6 are shrinkage values
2012 Autodesk
Overview
of the
Experiment

2012 Autodesk
Overview of the
Experiment
Moldflow DOE
Look for significant D
Molding trials With CRIMS
+
Perform measurement
Without CRIMS
Moldflow with
observed parameters
Compare predicted
with actual

2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment
Factors that Affect Warpage

Material Cooling Channels Part Design


Type Size, Location Wall Thickness
% Filler Flow Rate Size
Filler Properties Fluid Used Shape
Shrinkage Temperature
Warpage
Packing Press. Size
Fill Time, Speed Location
Melt Temp. Number
Processing Gating

2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment

Item Descriptions

Part Complexity 1) Battery Cover , 2) Battery Housing , 3) Foot Ball Housing 4)


Speaker Bracket, and 5) Seal Frame

Material Crystalline filled and Unfilled


Amorphous filled and Unfilled
[ 1) Lexan 141R, 2) Cycoloy C1200, 3) Ixef 1032, 4) Grivory GV5H,
and 5) Delrin 500 P]

Packing Pressure 60 % , 80 % and 100% of fill pressure

2012 Autodesk
Part, Material
and
Process Selection

2012 Autodesk
Overview of Experiment

1) Battery Cover (Flat shaped part) 2) Battery housing (Box shaped part)

2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment

3) Football housing 4) Speaker Bracket


(Box shaped with bosses and ribs) (Thick and thin combination with weld
line)

2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment

5) Seal Frame
(Long flow front with 8 flow front)

2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment

Unfilled Filled
IXEF 1032(polyarylamide
+ GF) and Grivory GV-
Crystalline Delrin 500 ( POM) 5H ( PA+GF)

Cycoloy 1200(PC+ABS) Valox 420 **( PET+GF)


Amorphous and Lexan 141 R (PC)

DOE was done in simulation to reduce molding operation


5 parts x 5 materials x 3 process conditions x 2 options for shrinkage
data = 150 simulation runs
** = Additional material evaluated

2012 Autodesk
Moldflow Simulation Results

2012 Autodesk
Simulation Results

Max deflection Max deflection


predicted predicted
Relative With CRIMS Without CRIMS
change in =
Warpage
Max deflection
predicted
Without CRIMS

2012 Autodesk
Simulation Results
I n d i v i d u a l V a l u e P l o t o f ( C R I M S - n o C R I M S ) / n o C R I M S

0 . 9

0 . 8

C R IM S
0 . 7

0 . 6

C R IM S ) / n o
0 . 5
Multi-vari chart

0 . 4

( C R IM S - n o
0 . 3

0 . 2

0 . 1

0 . 0

1 2 3 4 5

P a r t

Relative change in Warpage (with and without CRIMS) from Moldflow simulations

2012 Autodesk
Dot Plot to Select Molding Trial

Part Material Packing Pressure

Battery Cover Grivory GV-5H 80 %

Battery Housing Ixef- 1032 100 %

Football Housing Delrin 500P 100 %

Speaker Bracket Ixef-1032 60 %

Seal Frame Cycoloy C1200 100 %

Selected for Molding and CAV

2012 Autodesk
Simulation Results
As part
Responses used are delta/no-crims design
0.7

0.6
Material
1
2
complexity
3
(CRIMS- no CRIMS)/no CRIMS

0.5
4
5 increases,
0.4
predicted
0.3

0.2
impact of
0.1
CRIMS data
0.0
1 2 3 4 5
increases
Part

Multi-vari chart for relative change in Warpage from


Moldflow simulations 2012 Autodesk
Comments
When macros were used to create multiple
Moldflow study files, check to see the log file
to verify the simulation process settings are
represented from process setting.
In Moldflow, after analysis, create a new
anchor plane to translate all warpage values
into positive co-ordinates.

2012 Autodesk
Comparing Actual and
Simulation

2012 Autodesk
Measurement Technique
Equivalent points were measured on five samples for
each part using an optical Smartscope
Averaged values are shown below:
0.747
0.866 0.774
1.88 1.025

-0.063
0.38 0.059 0.304

0.347 0.627 0.067


0.151

2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Battery Cover
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:1.079 Max:1.151

0.866 1.88

0.38

CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 1


Improvement in Prediction = 17 % 2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Battery Housing
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:0.693 Max:1.1
0.774 1.025
0.475 0.385 0.734 0.897 0.774 1.025

CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 2


Improvement in Prediction = 33 %
2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Football Housing
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:.3700 Max:0.4989
0.2353 0.32 0.4247 0.4446

-0.2318 -0.4506

Delta = 0.4623 Delta = 0 .8732 Delta = 1.6097


CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 3
Improvement in Prediction = 28 %

2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Speaker Bracket
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:0.2543 Max:0.2793
0.0604 0.2472 0.1320
0.0798 0.1091
0.0022
0.1305
-0.0114 -0.0194

CAD dimension thickness = 6.0 mm

CRIMS shows better prediction in


Part 4
Improvement in Prediction = 8%
2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Seal Frame
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:0.3630 Max:0.3735
-0.3060 -0.3457

0.3581 0.3718

Delta is 0 .65 Delta is 0 .71 Max: 0.2530 Delta is 0 .13


-0.2479
3D Simulation with any
0.2473
method does not show
proper prediction for
Delta is 0 .48 Part 5
2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Seal Frame with runner
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual

-0.2184 -0.2621

0.2329 0.2782

Delta is 0 .44 Delta is 0 .53 Delta is 0 .13

-0.1579
3D Simulation with any method
does not shows proper
0.1772 prediction in Part 5
Delta is 0 .32 2012 Autodesk
Results and
Discussion
2012 Autodesk
Regression Analysis
Scatterplot of No Crims, Crims vs Actual
1.2 Variable
No C rims
C rims
1.0

0.8
Y-Data

0.6

0.4

0.2 Ideal Condition

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
A ctual

2012 Autodesk
Regression Analysis
In an ideal situation, where prediction and actual warpage are same the
slope = 1
Slope of No-CRIMS = 0.33 and Slope of CRIMS = 0.57

The regression equation is


No Crims = 0.116 + 0.333 Actual
S = 0.226823 R-Sq = 39.3% R-Sq(adj) = 35.5%
The regression equation is
Crims = 0.209 + 0.573 Actual
S = 0.185396 R-Sq = 74.2% R-Sq(adj) = 72.6%

Higher the R-Sq values better the curve was fitted


2012 Autodesk
Box Plot
Boxplot of delta no crims, delta crims
1.25

1.00 Ideal Condition


0.75

0.50
Data

0.25

0.00

-0.25

-0.50
delta no crims delta crims

2012 Autodesk
Probability of Good Prediction
One-Sample T: delta no crims
Test of mu = 0 vs not = 0
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P
delta no crims 18 0.3003 0.4177 0.0985 (0.0926, 0.5080) 3.05 0.007

One-Sample T: delta crims


Test of mu = 0 vs not = 0
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P
delta crims 18 0.0566 0.2897 0.0683 (-0.0874, 0.2007) 0.83 0.41824

There is a 40% higher probability of getting accurate


predictions by using CRIMS

2012 Autodesk
Conclusions

2012 Autodesk
Conclusions

By using CRIMS data for warpage simulation


We can achieve 24 % improvement in warpage prediction
Study shows 40% probability of accurate result with CRIMS compared
to 1% without CRIMS.
We can reduce tooling iterations to correct for part warpage
We can achieve substantial cost savings

2012 Autodesk
Acknowledgments

Marian Petrescu
Steve Spanoudis
Tim Dunford
Ben Nagaraj
Chris Sandieson
Dave Reiff

2012 Autodesk
Part 2 of paper
start here
2012 Autodesk
What is the Defect?

Inability to use CRIMS simulation process


due to lack of sufficient CRIMS data in
material library

36 2012 Autodesk
Current Status of Moldflow Material Data Base
MSI uses approximately 70 plastics materials
Remaining materials have no CRIMS data
Only some materials have CRIMS data

Lexan EXL 1433T Lexan EXL 1414

Cost for CRIMS data testing is expensive.


Testing time per batch of 4 materials is 6-8 weeks

37 2012 Autodesk
Pilot Batch Experimentation

Select 10 grades to test the experimentation method


While looking for comparable material, we used the following
parameters

Material composition
Filler content
MFI
Mechanical properties
Manufacturer( same is always better)

2012 Autodesk
Pilot Batch Experimentation

Cycolac - C1200 (ABS +PC)


Altuglas V825 ( PMMA)
Lexan EXL 1414 ( PC)
Makrolon 2805 (PC)
LNP Thermocomp DF004 (PC 20% GF)
LNP Thermocomp DF006 (PC 30% GF)
Lexan 920 (PC)
Bayblend FR3010 (ABS +PC)
Bayblend T45 (ABS +PC)
Xylex x7300 (PC+PET)

39 2012 Autodesk
Part Design
Autodesk Moldflow Plastics Insight 2010- R2

Tools Used
Autodesk Moldflow Insight 2010- R2
One sample t test
Test for Normality
Multivari chart
Anova

40 2012 Autodesk
Smart Scope with Laser Option

10 material were molded


and measured for warpage
with Motorola Solution-
supplemented CRIMS
values

Smart scope with routine ( Screen Shot)

Part being measured on smart scope

41 2012 Autodesk
Box Plot of Deltas of Original Cross Part

Ideal
Condition

Supplemented is
CRIMS
Delta = Actual warpage Simulated Values Substituted

Found significant outliers on warpage observation on some of


actual parts, which reflected in delta calculation
42 2012 Autodesk
Change in Part Design

Proposed part design at


beginning of Project

Part design for project was changed as


warpage observed had outlier on cross
part design
NFL housing part used in warpage
measurement, as part design was
structurally good.

43 2012 Autodesk
Normality Plot of Raw Data with new Part Design

Normality plot of raw data

No CRIMS (NC) Normality test p-value = 0.018


3D Normality test p-value = 0.296
Supplement (Sup) Normality test p-value = 0.436
Please note:Value above
0.05 means normal data

44 2012 Autodesk
Box Plot and Test of equal Variance New part

Test and CI for Two Variances: abs-del-nocrims, abs-del-Sup

Statistics

Variable N StDev Variance


abs-del-nocrims 9 0.132 0.017
abs-del-Sup 9 0.053 0.003

Ratio of standard deviations = 2.500


Ratio of variances = 6.250

95% Confidence Intervals

CI for
Distribution CI for StDev Variance
of Data Ratio Ratio
Normal (1.187, 5.264) (1.410, 27.706)
Continuous (0.478, 6.584) (0.229, 43.347)

Test
Method DF1 DF2 Statistic P-Value
F Test (normal) 8 8 6.25 0.018
Looking at the standard deviation of No CRIMS Levene's Test (any continuous) 1 16 2.35 0.145

shows that the data has unacceptability high


variability, hence we are discarding no CRIMS
method.

Levene test did not detect difference.


45 2012 Autodesk
Test of Variance between CRIMS and 3D for new part design

Abs-del-Sup : absolute delta of supplemented CRIMS


Abs-del3D : absolute delta of 3D
Test and CI for Two Variances: abs-del3D, abs-del-Sup

Method

Null hypothesis Sigma(abs-del3D) / Sigma(abs-del-Sup) = 1


Alternative hypothesis Sigma(abs-del3D) / Sigma(abs-del-Sup) not = 1
Significance level Alpha = 0.05

Tests

Test
Method DF1 DF2 Statistic P-Value
F Test (normal) 8 8 1.99 0.350
Levene's Test (any continuous) 1 16 0.70 0.416

This shows that we can compare 3D and CRIMS P-Value is great than 0.05, hence 3D
and sup-CRIMS are identical

46 2012 Autodesk
Anova to compare 3D and CRIMS for new part design

One-way ANOVA: abs-del3D, abs-del-Sup

Source DF SS MS F P
Factor 1 0.01192 0.01192 2.86 0.110
Error 16 0.06674 0.00417
Total 17 0.07865

S = 0.06458 R-Sq = 15.15% R-Sq(adj) = 9.85%

Grouping Information Using Tukey Method

N Mean Grouping
abs-del3D 9 0.14369 A
abs-del-Sup 9 0.09223 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different

Abs-del3D : absolute delta of 3D


Abs-del-Sup : absolute delta of supplemented CRIMS

ANOVA analysis shows no statistical difference between


3D and supplemented-CRIMS

47 2012 Autodesk
Conclusion
Supplemented CRIMS datas warpage and show similar values
as 3D

No-CRIMS warpage method showed inaccurate warpage

2012 Autodesk
Autodesk, AutoCAD* [*if/when mentioned in the pertinent material, followed by an alphabetical list of all other trademarks mentioned in the material] are registered trademarks or trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates in the USA and/or other countries. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product and
services offerings, and specifications and pricing at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document. 2012 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.
2012 Autodesk

You might also like