Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
1. Viscosity
2. PVT
3. Thermal
conductivity
4. Specific heat
capacity A1, A2 and A3 coefficients modify the parallel
5. Shrinkage (CRIMS)
shrinkage
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
2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment
Item Descriptions
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
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)
2012 Autodesk
Moldflow Simulation Results
2012 Autodesk
Simulation Results
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
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
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
2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Battery Cover
No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:1.079 Max:1.151
0.866 1.88
0.38
-0.2318 -0.4506
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
0.3581 0.3718
-0.2184 -0.2621
0.2329 0.2782
-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
0.0
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
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
2012 Autodesk
Conclusions
2012 Autodesk
Conclusions
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?
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
37 2012 Autodesk
Pilot Batch Experimentation
Material composition
Filler content
MFI
Mechanical properties
Manufacturer( same is always better)
2012 Autodesk
Pilot Batch Experimentation
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
41 2012 Autodesk
Box Plot of Deltas of Original Cross Part
Ideal
Condition
Supplemented is
CRIMS
Delta = Actual warpage Simulated Values Substituted
43 2012 Autodesk
Normality Plot of Raw Data with new Part Design
44 2012 Autodesk
Box Plot and Test of equal Variance New part
Statistics
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
Method
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
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
N Mean Grouping
abs-del3D 9 0.14369 A
abs-del-Sup 9 0.09223 A
47 2012 Autodesk
Conclusion
Supplemented CRIMS datas warpage and show similar values
as 3D
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