You are on page 1of 16

Test Paks.

com
Perspective-
Material Modeling and Mold Analysis
Hubert Lobo
Test Paks.com
A look back
Advent of simulation- early successes
Melt-solid transitions- the case for a
unified material model
Post-fill- PVT and the prediction of
shrinkage
Viscous heating- impact on flow behavior,
degradation
Why CRIMS has to work so hard
Test Paks.com
Advent- pre 1990
Solid scientific study into
rheology (Hieber et al)
Very strong rheological
models
Relatively simple simulation-
fill patterns
u Modest effect of phase change
u Rheology, thermal property
controlled behavior
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
N A A D D D
P
T
Pa
P D D T
T T A
T T A
D
N
: Unknowns
Pa Pressure
C e Temperatur
sec Rate Shear
sec . Viscosity
exp
1
*
2 1 3 2 1
1 -
3 2
*
*
2
*
1
1 0
1
*
0
0
t

q
q
t
q
q
q

+ =
(

+

=
|
.
|

\
|
+
=

Test Paks.com
Post-Filling Challenges
Simulation highly sensitive to very
slightly varying property behavior
(PVT)
u Location/nature of transition
u Absolute values of PVT properties
Test Paks.com
The PVT controversy
C-MOLD- process is in cooling-
measure PVT in cooling
Moldflow- Measure PVT while
heating
Test Paks.com
The PVT controversy-
Realities
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature C
s
p
.
v
o
l

(
c
m
3
/
g
)
PVT 10 MPa, Isobaric Heating
PVT 40 MPa Isothermal Cool
No super-cooling
Solid state not
representative
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature C
s
p
.
v
o
l

(
c
m
3
/
g
)
PVT 10 MPa, Isobaric Heating
PVT 10 MPa, Isobaric Cooling
PVT 40 MPa, Isobaric Cool
PVT 40 MPa Isothermal Cool
Test Paks.com
Accounting for rate with DSC
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
25 75 125 175 225 275 325
Temperature C
s
p
.
v
o
l

(
c
m
3
/
g
)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
100 C/min Kinetics
0 MPa
PVTmodel 0 MPa, 3C/min
PVT 10 MPa, 3C/min
DSC 0 Mpa, 100C/min
Lobo, Gordon Conference 98, Antec 99
Test Paks.com
Limitations
Good for quiescent situations
Supercooling effect overpredicted
when there is flow
u Transition is closer to heating
transition when shear effects present
Test Paks.com
What about high-rate PVT
Solid state data in PVT cooling will
always be wrong
u No instrument can reproduce the
unique frozen layer morphology or
shear state of the injection molding
process
Test Paks.com
Current Compromise
Use PVT heating data
u Reasonable transition location
u Good representation of solid state PVT
behavior
Test Paks.com
Shrinkage in simulation
Change in volume
in PVT data on
cooling
Starts at melt-solid
transition- Ttrans
249
219
189
159
129
99
69
40
50
100
150
200
1.0000
V
o
l
u
m
e
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Ttrans
b5
Tmelt
Teject
Finished part
Test Paks.com
Consequences
Small changes in Ttrans=large
change in shrinkage
Must be grounded in PVT data of
an injection-molded part
Test Paks.com
Melt-Solid transition
DSC based methods
u Easy to get high cooling rates
u Quiescent material
Shown to be not-representative
u Transitions are shear rate dependent
Test Paks.com
Melt-Solid transition
DMA based methods
High shear rate can be applied
Slower cooling rates
Also measures temp sensitivity of
viscosity
Set Ttrans based on modulus-
material too stiff to flow
(See Lobo MUG2000)
Test Paks.com
DMA for Semi-crystalline plastic
1.E+3
1.E+4
1.E+5
100 120 140 160 180 200
Temp (C)
E
t
a

(
P
a
.
s
)
Ttrans b5
Test Paks.com
Unified Material Model
Capillary Viscosity at Process temp
DMA cooling experiment at slow
rate high frequency
u Ttrans, b5
u Temp sensitivity of viscosity (D1, D2)
PVT in heating at same slow rate
Thermal conductivity and specific
heat transitions shifted to Ttrans