mold flow analysys project

11
J.M. Keerthi Bandara. SOAP BOX [MOLD FLOW ANALYSED REPORT] 19 April 2017

Upload: keerthi-bandara

Post on 21-Apr-2017

41 views

Category:

Design


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Mold Flow Analysys project

J.M. Keerthi Bandara.

SOAP BOX [MOLD FLOW ANALYSED REPORT]

19 April 2017

Page 2: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 1

Statement of the problem.

1. Select a suitable injection molding machine for the soap

box production process.

2. Select a suitable material feeding mechanism for

injection mold to get high quality product. (Pinpoint

gate & Submarine gate)

Page 3: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 2

Material & Method.

Material Detail

Polypropylene (PP)

Melt temperature 180 c0- 260 c0

Density 905 kgm-3

Software

Solidworks 2015.

Autodesk Moldflow Adviser 2016.

Page 4: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 3

Product Detail.

Page 5: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 4

Results.

Table 1:- Submarine Gate.( Runner diameter 1.76 mm balanced)

Maximum clamp force during cycle

16.021 (tonne)

Max. wall shear stress

0.231 (MPa)

Total part weight

25.794 (g)

Cooling time

0.80 (s)

Cycle time

16.86 (s)

Table 2 :- Pinpoint Gate (Runner diameter 2.64 mm and 2.79mm

balanced)

Maximum clamp force during cycle

19.395 (tonne)

Max. wall shear stress

0.288 (MPa)

Total part weight

24.947 (g)

Cooling time

0.00 (s)

Cycle time

16.09 (s)

Both runner systems are balanced by Mold Flow 2016 software.

Page 6: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 5

Flow Analysis Result

Figure 1: Confidence of fill.

Figure 2: Fill time.

Page 7: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 6

Figure 3: Injection pressure.

Figure 4: Quality Prediction.

Page 8: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 7

Figure 5 : Temperature at flow front.

Figure 6 : Time to reach ejection temperature.

Page 9: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 8

Figure 7: Volumetric Shrinkage at ejection.

Page 10: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 9

Conclusion.

According to Table 1 and Table 2, clamp force of the pin point gate product higher

than the submarine gate product. Part weight of pin point gate product lower than

the submarine gate product.

Machine Selection,

According to clamp force,

For submarine gate product = 16.021 x 1.5 = 24.03 tone.

For pinpoint gate product= 19.395 x 1.5 = 29. o9 tone.

According to part weight,

For submarine gate product = 25.794 x 1.2 = 30.95 g.

For pinpoint gate product= 24.947 x 1.2 = 29. 93 g.

According to flow analysis results, the pin point gate product quality is higher than

the other. But according to Figure 7, the pin point gate product has higher

volumetric shrinkage it will be creating sum sink problems (yellow area).

According Figure 5 this product needs some modifications to reduce the

difference of the temperature at flow front to building up high quality and durable

product.

Page 11: Mold Flow Analysys project

PAGE 10