Upload
darrell-perry
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© 2012 Autodesk
Study on effect of CRIMS data on warpage simulation and possibility of using supplement CRIMS data
Speaker Name: Venkatesh Aungadu KuppuswamySpeaker 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. PVT3. Thermal
conductivity4. Specific heat
capacity 5. Shrinkage (CRIMS)
•A1, A2 and A3 coefficients modify the parallel 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
Perform measurement
Moldflow withobserved parameters
Compare predicted with actual
With CRIMS+
Without CRIMS
© 2012 Autodesk
Overview of the Experiment Factors that Affect Warpage
Warpage
Material Cooling Channels Part Design
GatingProcessing
Packing Press.
Fill Time, Speed
Melt Temp.
Type
% Filler
Filler Properties
Shrinkage
Size, Location
Flow Rate
Fluid Used
Temperature
Size
Location
Number
Wall Thickness
Size
Shape
© 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 UnfilledAmorphous 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
(Box shaped with bosses and ribs)
4) Speaker Bracket
(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
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
Unfilled Filled
Crystalline Delrin 500 ( POM) Valox 420 **( PET+GF)
Amorphous Cycoloy 1200(PC+ABS)
and Lexan 141 R (PC)
IXEF 1032(polyarylamide + GF) and Grivory GV-5H ( PA+GF)
© 2012 Autodesk
Moldflow Simulation Results
© 2012 Autodesk
Simulation Results
Relative change in = Warpage
Max deflection predicted
With CRIMS
Max deflection predicted
Without CRIMS
Max deflection predicted
Without CRIMS
© 2012 Autodesk
Simulation Results
Relative change in Warpage (with and without CRIMS) from Moldflow simulations
54321
0 . 9
0 . 8
0 . 7
0 . 6
0 . 5
0 . 4
0 . 3
0 . 2
0 . 1
0 . 0
P a r t
(C
RI
MS
- n
o C
RI
MS
)/
no
C
RI
MS
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
Mu
lti-
vari
ch
art
© 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
54321
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Part
(CRIM
S- no C
RIM
S)/
no C
RIM
S
12345
Material
Responses used are delta/ no-crims
Multi-vari chart for relative change in Warpage from Moldflow simulations
As part design complexity increases, predicted impact of CRIMS data increases
© 2012 Autodesk
CommentsWhen 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
0.866
0.347
0.38
0.627
0.059
1.88
0.151
0.304
1.025
0.067
-0.063
0.774
0.747
•Equivalent points were measured on five samples for each part using an optical Smartscope•Averaged values are shown below:
© 2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Battery CoverNo CRIMS CRIMS Actual
1.880.866
0.38
CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 1
Max:1.151Max:1.079
Improvement in Prediction = 17 %
© 2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Battery HousingNo CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:1.1Max:0.6930.8970.7340.3850.475
1.0250.774
CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 2Improvement in Prediction = 33 %
1.0250.774
© 2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Football Housing No CRIMS CRIMS
Max:0.4989Max:.37000.2353
-0.2318
0.4247
-0.4506
0.32 0.4446
Delta = 1.6097Delta = 0.46 Delta = 0 .87
CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 3
Actual
Improvement in Prediction = 28 %
© 2012 Autodesk
Warpage of Speaker Bracket No CRIMS CRIMS Actual
Max:0.2793Max:0.2543
-0.0114
0.00220.0604
-0.0194
0.07980.2472
0.1305
0.10910.1320
CAD dimension thickness = 6.0 mm
CRIMS shows better prediction in Part 4
Improvement in Prediction = 8%
© 2012 Autodesk
Delta is 0 .13
Warpage of Seal Frame No CRIMS CRIMS
Max: 0.2530
Max:0.3735Max:0.3630
-0.3060
0.3581
-0.3457
0.3718
Delta is 0 .71
3D-0.2479
0.2473
Delta is 0 .48
Delta is 0 .65
Simulation with any method does not show proper prediction for Part 5
Actual
© 2012 Autodesk
Delta is 0 .13
Warpage of Seal Frame with runnerNo CRIMS CRIMS
-0.2184
0.2329
-0.2621
0.2782
Delta is 0 .53
3D-0.1579
0.1772
Delta is 0 .32
Delta is 0 .44
Actual
Simulation with any method does not shows proper prediction in Part 5
© 2012 Autodesk
Results and Discussion
© 2012 Autodesk
Regression Analysis
1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Actual
Y-D
ata
No CrimsCrims
Variable
Scatterplot of No Crims, Crims vs Actual
Ideal Condition
© 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 isNo Crims = 0.116 + 0.333 ActualS = 0.226823 R-Sq = 39.3% R-Sq(adj) = 35.5%The regression equation isCrims = 0.209 + 0.573 ActualS = 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
delta crimsdelta no crims
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
Data
Boxplot of delta no crims, delta crims
Ideal Condition
© 2012 Autodesk
Probability of Good PredictionOne-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 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
Lexan EXL 1414Lexan EXL 1433T
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
• 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 compositionFiller contentMFIMechanical propertiesManufacturer( same is always better)
© 2012 Autodesk 39
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)
Pilot Batch Experimentation
© 2012 Autodesk
Tools Used• Autodesk Moldflow Insight 2010- R2• One sample t test• Test for Normality • Multivari chart• Anova
Autodesk Moldflow Plastics Insight 2010- R2
40
Part Design
© 2012 Autodesk
Smart Scope with Laser Option
Part being measured on smart scope
Smart scope with routine ( Screen Shot)
41
10 material were molded and measured for warpage with “Motorola Solution-supplemented CRIMS values”
© 2012 Autodesk
Box Plot of ‘Deltas’ of Original Cross Part
42
Delta = Actual warpage – Simulated Values
Found significant outliers on warpage observation on some of actual parts, which reflected in delta calculation
Ideal Condition
Supplemented is CRIMS Substituted
© 2012 Autodesk
Change in Part Design
Proposed part design at beginning of Project
NFL housing part used in warpage measurement, as part design was structurally good.
Part design for project was changed as warpage observed had outlier on ‘cross part design’
43
© 2012 Autodesk
Normality Plot of Raw Data with new Part Design
Normality plot of raw data
No CRIMS (NC) Normality test p-value = 0.0183D Normality test p-value = 0.296Supplement (Sup) Normality test p-value = 0.436
44
Please note:Value above 0.05 means normal data
© 2012 Autodesk
Box Plot and Test of equal Variance – New part
45
Test and CI for Two Variances: abs-del-nocrims, abs-del-Sup
Statistics
Variable N StDev Varianceabs-del-nocrims 9 0.132 0.017abs-del-Sup 9 0.053 0.003
Ratio of standard deviations = 2.500Ratio of variances = 6.250
95% Confidence Intervals
CI forDistribution CI for StDev Varianceof Data Ratio RatioNormal (1.187, 5.264) (1.410, 27.706)Continuous (0.478, 6.584) (0.229, 43.347)
TestMethod DF1 DF2 Statistic P-ValueF Test (normal) 8 8 6.25 0.018Levene's Test (any continuous) 1 16 2.35 0.145Looking at the standard deviation of No CRIMS
shows that the data has unacceptability high variability, hence we are discarding no CRIMS method.
Levene test did not detect difference.
© 2012 Autodesk
Test of Variance between CRIMS and 3D for new part design
46
Test and CI for Two Variances: abs-del3D, abs-del-Sup Method Null hypothesis Sigma(abs-del3D) / Sigma(abs-del-Sup) = 1Alternative hypothesis Sigma(abs-del3D) / Sigma(abs-del-Sup) not = 1Significance level Alpha = 0.05
Tests TestMethod DF1 DF2 Statistic P-ValueF Test (normal) 8 8 1.99 0.350Levene'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
Ab
s-d
el3
D :
ab
solu
te d
elta
of 3
DA
bs-
de
l-S
up
: a
bso
lute
de
lta o
f su
pp
lem
en
ted
CR
IMS
© 2012 Autodesk
Anova to compare 3D and CRIMS for new part design
47
One-way ANOVA: abs-del3D, abs-del-Sup Source DF SS MS F PFactor 1 0.01192 0.01192 2.86 0.110Error 16 0.06674 0.00417Total 17 0.07865 S = 0.06458 R-Sq = 15.15% R-Sq(adj) = 9.85%
Grouping Information Using Tukey Method N Mean Groupingabs-del3D 9 0.14369 Aabs-del-Sup 9 0.09223 A Means that do not share a letter are significantly different
ANOVA analysis shows no statistical difference between 3D and supplemented-CRIMS
Abs-del3D : absolute delta of 3DAbs-del-Sup : absolute delta of supplemented CRIMS
© 2012 Autodesk
Conclusion
•Supplemented CRIMS data’s 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.