Computational and Experimental Evaluation of Two Models For The Simulation of Thermoplastics Injection Molding

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced fram the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face. while others may be tram any type of
computer printer.
The quallty of this reproduction is dependent upon the quallty of the
capy submitted. Broken or indistinct prin!. colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs. print bleedthrough. substandard margins. and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
ln the untikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing Pages, these will be noted. Also, if unautharized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
OversiZe materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing
from left ta right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographie prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contad UMI dir8CUy ta arder.
ProOuest Information and Leaming
300 North leeb Raad" Ann Arbor. MI 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Computational and Experimental Evaluation ofTwo Models for the
Simulation of Tbermoplasties Injeetion Molding
by
Jos Ram6n Hemandez Aguilar
Department of Chemical Engineering
McGill University, Montral
February 2000
Athesis submitted to the Faculty ofGraduate Studies and Research in partial
fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree ofMaster of Engineering
Jos Ram6n Hemndez Aguilar, 2000
1+1
Nationall.Jbrary
of Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographie services
395 WellngtDn Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
canada
Bibliothque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
3&5. rue WeUingtcln
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
The author bas granted a non-
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library ofCanada to
reproduce, lom, distnbute or sen
copies ofthis thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.
The author retains ownership ofthe
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nOf substantial extracts ftomit
may he printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author' s
permission.
L'auteur a accord une licence non
exclusive permettant la
Bibliothque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thse sous
la forme de de
reproduction sur papier ou sur fonnat
lectronique.
L'auteur conserve la proprit du
droit d'auteur qui protge cette thse.
Ni la thse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent tre imprims
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
0-612-64224-0
Abstract
ln this work, two mathematical models for the simulation ofthe injection molding process
were tested and their predictions were validated with experimental data. One of these
models is based on the well-known "Hele-Shaw" approximation which, is commonly
used by a considerable number ofcommercial packages. This method utilizes the faet that
generally the tlow is confined in a narrow gap in which out-of-plane tlows may he
ignored and, therefore, only a two-dimensional (2-D) solution of the flow field is
necessary. One remarkable limitation ofthis approach is its impossibility of predicting the
so-called "fountain tlow". Furthermore, this model negiects the role of crystallization
kinetics. On the other hand, the other model proposes a methodology that deals with
fountain tlow and crystallization. It is based on the so-called "2Y::-D" numerical
simulation since it combines a 2-D tlow analysis with a 3-D solution of the energy
equation. First, atwo-dimensional analysis in the gap-wise direction is performed in order
to obtain fountain tlow information. Then, in-plane two-dimensional flow solutions are
coupled with three-dimensional energy results, which incorporate the heat generated by
crystallization. Two different thermoplastics were investigated. Polyethylene was seleeted
to characterize the crystalline behavior. Polystyrene was chosen as the amorphous
material. In order to obtain insight of the overall injection molding cycle, pressure
evolution in the cavity and in the nozzle was examined carefully. More accurate pressure
results were computed when using the 2Y::-D Madel. This study thus puts in evidence the
importance of including fountain flow and crystallization kinetics in the injection molding
process.
Rsum
Dans ce travail, deux modles mathmatiques pour la simulation du procd de moulage
par injection ont t mis en oeuvre et leurs prdictions ont t valides en utilisant des
donnes exprimentales. L'un de ces modles est fond sur l'approximation de
"Hele-Shaw", laquelle est bien connue et frquemment employe dans un nombre
considrable de logiciels commerciaux. Cette mthode suppose que gnralement le flux
soit confin dans un espace trs reduit dans lequel les flux qui se trouvent hors du plan
consider peuvent tre ignors. Par elle ne propose qu'une solution bi-
dimensionnelle (2-0). Une limitation importante de cette approche consiste en
l'impossibilit de prdire l'effet fontaine. En outre, ce modle ne tient pas compte du rle
de la cintique de cristallisation du matriau utilis. D'autre part, l'autre modle propose
une mthodologie qui Permet d'apprcier ces deux aspects: l'effet fontaine et la
cristallisation. Il se fonde sur la simulation numrique "2YrD", laquelle combine
l'analyse du flux 2-D avec une solution trois dimensions (3-D) pour l'quation
d'nergie. Dans un premier temps, une analyse bi-dimensionnelle est excute dans le
plan de l'epaisseur pour obtenir l'information relative l'effet fontaine. Ensuite, les
solutions bi-dimensionnelles de la projection sont associes aux rsultats tri-
dimensionnels de l'nergie, lesquels incorporent la chaleur produite par la cristallisation.
Deux thermoplastiques diffrents ont t etudis. Le polythylne fut slectionn pour
valuer le comportement cristallin et le polystyrne fut choisi comme matriau amorphe.
Afin d'obtenir un aperu du cycle entier du procd de moulage par injection, l'volution
de la pression tant dans la cavit que dans la buse ont t soigneusement inspectes. Les
rsultats obtenus en utilisant le modle 2YrD se sont avrs plus prcis. Cette tude met
donc en vidence l'importance d'inclure l'effet fontaine et la cintique de cristallisation
du matriau pendant le procd de moulage par injectiOD.
AclmowledaemeDts
1wish to express my deepest gratitude to my research supervisor, Professor M. R. Kamal,
for bis guidance and support during the course ofthis project.
1 greatly appreciate the assistance rec:eived from the members of my researc:h group,
Mr. Lei Wang, Mr. Mazen Samara, Or. Philippe Le Bot, Or. YaIda Farhoudi, Mr. Beyan
Elhosini and Mr. Edgar Ramirez. Particularly, 1 deeply thank the sincere aid of Dr.
Richard Lai-Fook who shared with me aIl the difficulties that arose trom this worlc.
1aIso thank Mr. Lou Cusmich, Mr. Alain Gagnon and the personnel ofthe Machine Shop
for their professional response to the diverse work required during the development ofthe
projeet.
1 am grateful for the financial support received !rom the Department of Chemical
Engineering of McGill University in the fonn of a Teaching Assistant position. The
differential fee waiver granted by The Ministry of Education of Quebec is also
appreciated. Thanks to Dow Chemical Canada Inc. and Nova Chemicals Ltd. for
supplying the resins used in the experimental work.
Finally, 1would like to express my sincerest thankfulness to my wife, Noriko, for ber
love and patience. My utmost gratitude is given to my parents for their unconditional
support and everlasting love.
i
Table ofContents
Abstract i
RslIm
Ackn.owledgements i
Table ofContents v
List ofFigures vi
List ofTahles x
Nomenclature xi
Chapter 1: Introduction l
1.1 The Injection Molding Process........................................................................... 1
12 Residual Stresses in Injection Molding 2
1.3 The Present State ofInjection Molding Technology 2
1.4 The Motivation ofThis Study .............................................................................. 4
1.S Specifie Objectives 5
1.6 Thesis Organization 5
Chapter 2: Theoretical 6
2.1 The General Approach 6
2.2 Description ofModel A 7
2.2.1 Goveming Equations for the Filling Stage ................................................... 10
2.2.2 Goveming Equations for the Packing Stage 13
2.2.3 Boundary Conditions for the Filling Stage 16
2.2.4 Boundary Conditions for the Packing Stage 16
2.2.5 Treatment ofth.e Ronner 17
22.6 Calculation ofResidual Stresses 19
2.3 DescriptionofModel B 22
2.3.1 Governing Equations for the Filling Stage 23
2.3.2 Governing Equations for the Packing Stage 23
2.3.3 Boundary Conditions for the FillingStage 24
2.3.4 Boundary Conditions for the Packing Stage..............................................25
2.3.5 Treatment ofthe Rtmner 2S
iv
2.4 Numerical Methods 26
Chapter 3: Experimental 28
3.1 Materials 28
3.1.1 Polyeth.ylene .......................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 Polystyrene 36
3.2 Injection Molding 43
3.3 Determination ofResidual Stresses 46
Chapter 4: Results and DisC'.JSsion 49
4.1 Polyethylene 49
4.1.1 Pressure 49
4.1.2 Residual Stresses 58
4.1.3 Crystallinity 66
4.1.4 Temperature 7S
4.2 Polystyrene 84
4.2.1 Pressure 84
42.2 Residual Stresses 84
4.2.3 Temperature 9S
4.2.4 Effect of viscoelasticity lOS
Chapter S: Conclusions 108
References 110
v
1 1
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Sketch ofthe cavity and the position ofthe coordinate axes 9
Figure 3.1 Experimental and fitted lines of the specifie volume versus
temperature at different pressures. H D P E ~ Sclair 2908 30
Figure 3.2 Experimental behavior of the specifie heat and the average value
used by ModeiB. Sclair 2908 32
Figure 3.3 Thermal conduetivity values of Sclair 2908 used by Model A
and ModelB 35
Figure 3.4 Experimental viscosity data of Styron 685D fitted with the
Cross-WLF model 39
Figure 3.5 Experimental viscosity data of Styron 685D fitted with the 9-
coefficients empirical model 39
Figure 3.6 Experimental and fitted PVTdata ofStyron 6850 40
Figure 3.7 Specifie Heat ofStyron 678E 41
Figure 3.8 Experimental data of the thermal conductivity of Styron 6850
and the values used in the simulations 42
Figure 3.9 The schematic diagram of the polymer delivery system and the
cavity 4S
Figure 3.10 Location of the specimen in the injection molded plaque for the
residual stress experiments 46
Figure 4.1 Typical experimental pressure evolution at different positions..
Polyethylene experiments 50
Figure 4.2 Experimental and predieted pressure histories in the cavity and
in the nozzIe.. Polyethylene, Run 1 51
in the nozzIe.. Polyethylene, Run 2 52
in the nozzIe. Polyethylene, Run 3 S3
vi
Figure 4.5 Experimental and predicted pressure histories in the cavity and
inthe nozzle. Polyethylene, Run 4 54
in the nome. Polyethylene, Run 5 5S
in the nozzle. Polyethylene, Run 6 56
in the nozzle. Polyethylene, Run 7 57
Figure 4.9 Pressure contours and evolution ofthe Cree surface usDg
Model A. Run 1, Polyethylene 59
Figure 4.10 Pressure contours and evolution ofthe free surface using
Model B. Run 1, Polyethylene 60
Figure 4.11 Experimental and predicted residual stress distribution using
Madel A. Polyethylene, Run 1 61
Figure 4.13 Experimental and predieted residual stress distribution using
Model A. Polyethylene, Run 4 64
Model A. Polyethylene, Run 6 65
Figure 4.16 The effect of packing pressure on the predicted residual stresses
using Model A. Polyethylene 67
Figure 4.17 The effect of coolant temperature on the predieted residual
stresses using Madel A. Polyethylene 68
Figure 4.18 The etJect of melt temperature on the predicted residual stresses
using Model A. Polyethylene 69
Figure 4.19 Evolution of residual stresses close ta the gate using Madel A.
Run 1, Polyethylene 70
vii
Figure 4.20 Predicted crystallinity distrIbution in the cavity at 10 seconds
using Model A. Run 1, Polyethylene 71
Figure 4.21 Predicted crystallinity distribution in the tavity at 15 seconds.
Figure 4.22 Predieted crystallinity distribution in the cavity at 20 seconds
Figure 4.23 Evolution of crystallinity across the thickness at three positions
in the cavity 74
Figure 4.24 Measured and predicted crystallinity profiles using Model A.
Experimental values taken from [28]. Processing Conditions:
Melt Temp =210C, Cooling Temp =20 oC, Packing Press =
30.5MPa 76
Figure 4.25 Temperature profiles at 1second. Run 1, Polyethylene 77
Figure 4.26 Temperature profiles at the end offilling. Run 1, Polyethylene 78
Figure 4.27 Temperature profiles at 10 seconds. Run 1, Polyethylene 79
Figure 4.28 Temperature profiles at 20 seconds. Run 1, Polyethylene 80
Figure 4.29 Temperature profiles at 30 seconds. Run l, Polyethylene 81
Figure 4.30 Evolution of the temperature distribution in the cavity during
tilling. Results at ~ Wand z =o. Run 1, Polyethylene 82
Figure 4.31 Temperature distribution in the cavity at the end of filling.
Results at ~ Wand z =o. Run 1, Polyethylene 83
in the nozzIe. Polystyrene, Run 1 85
in the nozzIe. Polystyrene, Run 2 86
Figure4J4 Experimental and predieted pressure histories in the cavity and
in the nozzle. Polystyrene, Run 4 87
inthe nozzle. Polystyrene, Run 5 88
Figure 4.36 Pressure contours and evolution ofthe me surface using
Model A. Run 1, Polystyrene 89
Figure 4.37 Pressure contours andevolution ofthe free surtce using
90
Model A. Polystyrene, Run 1 91
A. Run 2 92
Model A. Run 4 93
Model A. Polystyrene, Run 5 94
Figure 4.42 Evolution of residual stresses close ta the gate using Model A.
Run 4, Polystyrene 96
Figure 4.43 The effeet of packing pressure on the predicted residual stresses
using Model A, Polystyrene 97
Figure 4.44 The effeet of coolant temperature on the predicted residual
stresses using Model A, Polystyrene 98
Figure 4.45 The effect of melt temperature on the predicted residual stresses
using Model A, Polystyrene 99
Figure 4.46 Temperature profiles at 0.7 seconds. Run l, Polystyrene 100
Figure 4.47 Temperature profiles at the end offilling. Run 1, Polystyrene 101
Figure 4.48 Temperature profiles at 2.5 seconds. Run 1, Polystyrene 102
Figure 4.49 Temperature profiles at 10 seconds. Run l, Polystyrene 103
Figure 4.50 Temperature profiles at 20 seconds. Run 1, 104
Figure 4.51 Temperature distribution in the cavity at the end of tilling.
Results at Wand z = O. Run 1, Polystyrene 106
Figure 4.52 Predieted residual stresses using Model A, Polystyrene
Blue dash line: WMViscoelastic Modulus (G) = 0.1 MPa
Red line: WM V'lSCoelastic Modulus (G) = 10 MPa 107
ix
Table l.1
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
List afTables
Various available commercial software packages for the
simulation ofthermoplastics injection molding
Parameters ofthe PVT equation. Polyethylene, Selait 2908
Crystallization kinetics constants ofSclair 2908
Other values for Polyethylene
Parameters ofthe PVT equation. Polystyrene, Styron 685D
Other values for Polystyrene
Specifications ofthe Injection Molding Machine
Proc:essing conditions for the injection molding of Polyethylene
Processing conditions for the injection molding ofPolystyrene
The polymer delivery systemand the cavity geometry
3
30
32
36
38
42
43
44
44
45
NomeDelature
Upper case letten
Cp specifie heat
E elasticmodulus
fa elastic modulus ofthe amorphous part
E
c
elastic modulus ofthe crystalline part
F force vector per unit volume
Fb body force vector pet unit volume
H halfthe thickness ofthe cavity
Mir heat offusion ofa 100%crystalline material
K non-isothermaI crystallization rate constant
K
mu
maximum non-isothermal crystallization rate constant
L Length ofthe cavity
S heat generated by chemical reaction
T temperature
Tg glass transition temperature
Tm melt temperature
Tw wall temperature
V
W width ofthe cavity
Xa relative mass fraction crystallinity
Xe ultimate mass fraction crystallinity
Z isothermal crystallization rate constant
Lo.er case letten
a thermal diffsivity
gravity accelerationvec:tor
xi
h heat transfer coefficient
k thermal conduetivity
m Avrami exponent
n power Iaw index for viscosity
p pressure
il
heat flux vector
t time
v velocity vector
Greek letten
al
linear thermal expansion coefficient
<J)
dissipation function
t
shearrate
TJ
shear viscosity
e dimensionless temperature (T...Tw)/(Tm-Tw)
p density
!
stresstensor
v Poisson ratio
Z
degree ofcrystallinity
VI'
stream function
Cl vorticity
xii
CIl.pter 1
IDtroduction
Among the existing plastic processing techniques, the injection molding process is one of
the MOst widely employed and subsequently, one ofthe MOst important commercially. [ts
relevance takes mot in the ease of manufacturing economically large quantities of
complex-shaped plastic produets with practically no tinishing requirements.
1.1 The Injection Molding Procas
ln its simplest forro, injection molding is a process in which solid plastic granules are
melted in the barrel of a molding machine and then forced into a mold. The mold, made
with two mating halves, contains one or several cavities. Each cavity is the hollow shape
of the part to be molded. The maleria! is then cooled to make it a solid again and the
plastic article is removed.
The injection molding process bas been generally divided ioto three stages [1]: tilling,
packing and cooling. During the tilling stage, the malten materia! is injected into the
mold until the mold is just filled. After the end of filling, high pressure is applied and
held for a certain period w h i c ~ is identitied as the packing stage. During packing, an
additional mass of polymer is forced to enter the mold and so compensate for the
volumetrie shrinkage of the material caused by its thennodynamie behavior.. Eventually,
the force applied at the feed system is released. This defines the beginning of the third
phase known as the cooling stage. During cooling, the plastic solidifies while in the mold.
[t should he noted, however, that the material is exposed ta cooling from the mold walls,
fromthe instant the melt enters the cavity..
1
1.2 Residu Stresses iD lajectioD MoldiDg
Many of the studies on injection molding found in literature have focused on
understanding how the processing conditions influence the ultimate characteristics of the
plastic article. Among these characteristics, dimensional stability of the part is
particularly important, with increasing demand for producing sophisticated plastic articles
with complex shapes. Shrnkage (decrease in sizc) and warpage (change in shape) are the
MOst common dimensional instabilities encountered in injection molded articles. Residual
stresses are the main causes ofshrinkage and warpage [2].
Residual stresses are mechanical stresses found in the molding in the absence of the
application of extemal forces. They are part of the stresses generated in the component
during the molding process, that remain after it is ejected from the mold and has cooled
down to ambient temperature. They result from the velocity and temperature profiles that
prevail during the molding process. It is known that residual stresses in injection molding
have two different origins and are accordingly classified into two principal types: tlow
stresses and thermal stresses. As mentioned previously, these stresses have a considerable
influence on the dimensional accuracy of the part but aIso, they affect its usability, its
mechanical propemes, and its resistance to chemicals [3].
1.3 The PreseDt State of IajeetioD MoldiDg TecbDOlogy
Due ta the tremendous difficu1ties encountered in the interplay between the processing
variabies and the ultimate characteristics in injection molding, processing and mold
design remained an almost total empirical task for many years [4]. Evidently, the crucial
challenge is ta apply the basic principles of the physical sciences and engineering te
create new technologies directed ta optimize the final charaeteristics of the molded
produet at a reasonable cost. One solution is ta develop software packages that descne
the process and that contain reIationships which enable the user ta calcuIate the properties
ofthe molded article.
2
In the decade of the 1970's, some researchers proposed various relevant mathematical
models based on engineering principles [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Although these pioneering
studies dealt with rather simple geometries, they contributed to the establishment of the
theoretical basis, which supported the tirst commercial software packages that appeared
inthe 1980's. Some ofthese available computer programs are listed in Table 1.1 [13]:
Table 1.1: Yarious availab/e commercial software paclcages for the simulation of
thermoplastics injection mo/ding
1. McKAM
2. MOLDFLOW
3. PLASVIEW
4. C-FLOW
S. CADMOULD
6. TMCONCEPT
7. GRAFTEK
The Department of Chemical Engineering of McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Moldtlow Pty. Ltd., Kilsyth, Victoria, Australia.
The Industrial Materials Institute ofThe National Research Council
ofCanada, Boucherville, Quebec.
Advanced CAE Technology, Ine., and The Sibley School of
Mecbanical and Aerospace Engineering of Comell University,
Ithata, New York, U.S.A.
Institut fr Kunststoffverarbeitung, Aachen, Germany.
Plastics &. Computer International s.r.L, Milano, Italy.
Graftek IDe., Boulder, Connecticut, U.S.A.
These programs provide analyses of the filling, packing and cooling phases. The
simulation of these stages must deal with some complex problems, such as ftee-surface
tlow and solidification of a compressible, non-Newtonian, viscoelastic, and in some
cases, crystallizable polymerie material with variable thermodynamic and rheological
properties, in complex-shaped cavities onder non-isothermal and transient conditioDS.
3
DeaIing with all of these problems simultaneously in a full three-dimensional
mathematical systemrepresents an extraordinary task, wbich is beyond the capabilities of
available software packages. Although these packages bave technicallimitations, they
offet an expanding opportunity 10 users to deal with many of the important issues
encountered in injection molding [14].
1.4 The motivatioD of this study
roday, computer simulation programs are available at different levels of sophistication
and thereby with variable degrees of predictive capabilities. In general, three criteria are
essential to discem among these packages:
o The accuracy ofthe predictions for a large variety ofmaterials and processing
conditions.
The complexity ofthe mold geometry that can be handled
The user friendliness.
The motivation ofthis study was to analyze the first ofthese issues.
One of the most typical ways to classify the large variety of polymerie materials is to
consider them as crystalline or amorphous [15]. In this one material ofeach
of these groups was selected for the analysis: Polyethylene (PE) as the crystalline
polymer, and polystyrene (PS), as the amorphous one.
AIso, two different mathematical formulations were selected for the computational work.
The first one is the McGill University Model (McKAM), referred in this study as
"Model A". Reference [16] gives a detaiIed description ofthis modeL The second
"Model B", is based on the well-known Hele-Sbaw approximation [17,18], which is
employed by a number ofcommercial packages.
4
1.5 Specifie Objectives
The present investigation intends to contribute to the development of the McGill
University Injection Molding Software known as McKAM. Snce its creation, McKAM
bas been tested using a crystalline polymer only (polyethylene). In this study, McKAM
was tested employing a polystyrene resin in arder ta characterize the amorphous
behavior.
Thus, the specifie objectives ofthis work were:
o Using two different thermoplastie materials: one amorphous (pS, STYRON 6850)
and one crystalline (pE
7
SCLAIR 2908), to compare the results obtained by using
MeKAM (Model A) with the solutions obtained by implementing a commercial
package (Model B) for a set of processing conditions.
Perform a detailed graphicaI analysis ofthe main predictions: pressure, temperature,
crystallinity, and residual stresses.
Investigate the influence ofviscoelasticity on the predictions.
o Validate predictions with measured values of pressure, temperature
7
crystallinity,
and residual stresses.
1.6 Thais Ol'laDizatioD
This thesis is divided into the following parts. Chapter 2 provides the rationale of the two
mathematical models onder study. The description of the materiaI properties and the
experimental techniques used inthis investigation are given in Cbapter 3. Numerical and
experimental resuIts are presented and discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains the
conclusions ofthis wode.
5
CIt.pter2
Theoretial
This chapter descnes the theoretical approach of the two mathematical models onder
study. Goveming equations are stated along with a set ofboundary and initial conditions.
2.1 Tbe General Approacb
After understanding the physics and chemistry of a process, the general procedure for its
mathematical modeling implies establishing goveming equations with boundary and/or
initial conditions, choosing a suitable numerical method, obtaining the solution and
finally, giving appropriate interpretations.
In generaI, governing equations are derived ftom the mathematical expressions of the
basic principles of physics, namely, the conservation laws of mass, momentum and
energy w h i c ~ are presented as follows [19]=
Continuity:
Momentum:
Energy:
DV
P Dt =-Vp+Vr..+pg
(2.1)
(2.2)
(2.3)
6
The meaning of each symbol in Equations (1.1) to (1.3) is given in the nomenclature
section of this Thesis. These equations are usually coupled with additional constitutive
equations for the material properties. They include an equation relating the specific
volume ta pressure and temperature (8 PVT equation of a thermal constitutive
equation relating the heat flux vector to the temperature a rheological
constitutive equation relating the stress tensor to the defonnation or rate of deformation
of the material, and, a kinetic expression relating the rate of heat generation ta time and
temperature ifneeessary.
Due to the complexity ofthe above equations, a number of assumptions are usually made
to facilitate obtaining solutions. Models differ according to the simplifying assumptions
that are made. Another important differenee among models is the numerical method
selected ta solve the equations.
One of the most common formulations when modeling the injection molding process is
the well-known "Hele-Shaw" approximation. This method uses the fact that generally the
flow is confined in 8 narrow gap with 8 very small height compared ta other dimensions.
In this out--of-plane flows MaY he ignored and, only 8 two-dimensional
(2-D) solution ofthe tlow field is nec:essary. One important limitation ofthis approach is
its impossibility of predicting the so-called 61"ountain tlow". Fountain flow oecors when
the molten polymer channeling through the center tends ta move and conveet towards the
cavity walls near the advancing melt front. Assuming no tlow in the gap-di:reetion is not
realistic, especially close to the Cree surface region [20].

Kama! et al [21] proposed a model that deals with the fountain flow and other relevant
aspects. This model in recognized as "Madel A" in the present work and is descnDed
below.
7
Model A is based on the so-called 2Y:l-D numerical simulation, since it combines a 2-D
tlow analysis witb. a 3-D solution ofthe energy equation. It assumes that the cavity bas a
constant tbickness and, therefore, the motion calculations are performed in a two-
dimensional plane. The solution to the tlow problem is coupled with either two-
dimensional or three-dimensional heat transfer analysis. The two-dimensional tlow
analysis together with twCHlimensional heat transfer analysis is used mainly when
performing the simulation in the xz-plane, which is the gap-wise direction (see figure
2.1). Simulation in the in-plane direction (xy-plane), bowever, utilizes the three-
dimensional heat transfer analysis since the distribution of temperature in the fluid
remains Mly three..mmensional with significant gradients occurring near the mold wa11s.
While the analysis using the in-plane direction provides useful details regarding the flow
in the plane of cavity, it normally does not supply important information regarding flow
details along the thickness direction. However, this Madel combines the two analyses ta
obtain a reasonable description of the overall tlow field, including fountain flow. As
stated previously, the incorporation of the fountain tlow is critical for the description of
the temperature field, bath near the tlow front and near the mold walL ln particular, the
evolution of crystallinity at the surface of the molding is strongly influenced by the
fountain tlow [21].
The model takes into consideration the transient nature ofthe process. As a consequence,
the boundary of the computational domain is constantly changing with the moving of
melt front in the tilling stage. The movement of the melt front is determined by the
displacements calcuJated using the components of the physical velocities at the moving
boundary and special treatments ofthe slip condition near the walls are implemented. Ta
account for this moving boundary problem, a boundary-titted non-orthogonai eUiptic grid
is generated every time the melt front is advanced. Therefore, grid velocity is
incorporated into the conservation equations sa that the analysis can he carried out in an
Eulerian frame ofreference.
8
x
Cavity
Entrance
1
1
1
------l
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
w
.t
2H
T
Figure 2.1: Sketch ofthe moldcavity andtheposition ofthe coordinate axes..
x is the length direction, which is also the mainflow direction;
y is the width direction; z is the thiclcness direction; Lis the
cavity length; Wis the cavity width; 2His the cavity thiclcness..
9
This model deals with the non..Newtonian nature of the polymer melt by considering
various rheological constitutive equations sucb as, the Power Law (viscous), the White..
Metzner (viscoelastic), the Carreau model (viscous), and the Cross..WLF model
(viscous). Also, Model A incorporates other relevant issues such as, the analysis of the
moner and crystaIlization effects.
2.2.1 GovemiDg Equ.ous for tbe FUlial Stage
During t i l l i n ~ Model A assumes that the flow is incompressible, the polymer is
viscoelastic, the body forces are negligible and there is no flow in the transverse
direction, z. The stream function (rp) and vorticity () formulation [22] is employed to
solve the flow problem due to the difficulties encountered when using the primitive
variable method. Expansion effects in the energy equation are aIso ignored.
As already mentioned, the assomption of no tlow in the transverse direction is valid for
most of the melt, except in the fountain flow region. ln this model, the etTeet of fountain
tlow is treated separately.
o Gap-wise aDaivsis: This analysis is conducted first in order to obtain the information
regarding fountain tlow. A reasonable approach is to carry out the analysis in the
symmetry plane where the tlow in the width direction is absent. AIso, no shear condition
is assumed in the width direction, which is a valid assumption since the width is much
larger than the thickness. The energy problem is solved using the two-dimensional fonn
of the energy equation since the temperature gradient in the y-direction vanishes at the
symmetry plane. Considering aIl the above assumptions, Equations (2.1) ta (2.3) can he
expressed as follows:
10
(
T T eT)
pep ar +u x +w az =
(2.4)
(2.5)
(2.6)
Where:
u=a",
(2.7)
az
...
0V'
(2.8) W=--
ax
w u
(2.9) t=---
X z
[
(w) ( w)] -'1-+-'1-
x x z z
(2.10)
(2.11)
(2.12)
11
Se is the source that considers the non-Newtonian elastic contribution of the fluid, as
suggested by Perera and Walters [23}. The stresses can he calculated from a constitutive
model of viscoelastic fluids such as the White-Metmer equation. However, Sm vanishes
for inelastic models such as the Power Law.
The rate of crystallization (Equation 2.11) is expressed using the differential form of the
non-isothermal Nakamura model [24]. In this equatiolL, Km is a rate constant; m is
Avrami's constant; a is the relative crystallinity which is detined as ZIZeo; and X is the
ultimate crystallinity for the polymer.
ID-pl.De aualysis: In this case, the flow in the z-direc:tion is assumed ta he negligible
except in the fauntain flow region. Fountain flow information is obtained from the gap-
wise analysis and is desco"bed by the funetion:
w =g(d,z,Xft) (2.13)
Where d is the normal distance from the Cree surface, and Xft is the location of the free
surface. Equations 2.4 and 2.5 are used to solve the 2-D tlow field problem but replacing
the z-dimension by the y and the velocity w by the velocity in the y-direction v. The
average velocity plane is chosen for the calculation of the flow field in order to obtain
realistic information about the advancement of meit front AIso, the source term in
Equation 2.5 includes supplemental tenns:
(2.14)
The no-flow assumption in the z-direetiolL, alone, is insufficient to render the equations
two-dimensional since the gradients of velocity in that direction can have an impact.
12
Renee, a power-Iaw profile for the velocity is assumed in the thickness direction. The
powerlawprofile is given by:
(2.15)
(2.16)
Where Uo and Uo are the velocities at central plane in the x- and y--directions respectively.
H is halfthe thiekness ofthe eavity and n is the power-law index.
The velocity distribution in the fountain flow region is obtained !rom Equation (2.13) and
t h e ~ used in the convection termofthe 3-D energy equation:
(2.17)
(!c
aT
. )+ (lcaT)+.-(k
aT
)+ -\u DX
x x y ay z az JoA-MI. L Dt
2.1.2 GoveraiDI EquatioDS Cor tbe Packing Stale
In the packing stage, the primitive variable formulation is employed since the velocities
on the walls are trivial and equal ta zero. As in the fiIling stage, it is assumed that the
polymer is viscoelastic, the body forces are negligible and there is no tlow in the z-
direction. However, in this stage, compressible flow must be eonsidered sinee the change
in density or the compressibility of the melt makes it possible for the packing to take
13
place. Therefore, the equations of continuity and momentum (Equations 2.1 and 2.2) are
presented in twCHlimensional rorm for unsteady, non-Newtonian and compressible flow:
_P
t x ay x ax x y y
(Pv) +a(puv) + (pu
2
) = _a> + u) u) +S
t x ay y ax ax y y CI
(2.18)
(2.19)
(2.20)
Similar treatment for the source terms Su and Sv is implemented as in Equation (2.10) to
include the elastic stresses due the non-Newtonian nature of the problem. The source
terms Su and Sv are then expressed by:
(
Ja ... rZ: ) [ ( "') ( ...)]
S" = gr +- - - TJOU +- TJ!!!!.
x ay az x ax y y
(2.21)
(2.22)
For the simple case of a generalized Newtonian tluid (inelastic) where the viscosity
follows the power law the stress components are expressed as:
u
rz =211-,
x
u
r=n-
"' z'
v
r" =2"-
"' y'
v
rY= =T/-
Z
(
au au)
-+-
y x
(2.23)
14
In!bis case, the source terms reduces to the foUowing:
S" = arx: -[.!..-('1U)+.!.-(l1 au)]
az x x y x
DrX:
Su =orY: -[.!.-(Tl U)+.!..-(TJ u)]
oz oy y x oy
_ ry:
= ~
(2.24)
(2.25)
The viscous components shown in Equations (2.24) and (2.25) are negligible compared to
the gradients of shear stresses in the thickness direction. For other constitutive equations
such as the White-Metzner equation, the whole source term of Equations (2.19) and
(2.20) has to be calculated.
In the packing stage, the density of the polymer or melt foUows a PVT relationship. The
pressure at the nozzIe in the packing stage is assumed to followan empirical relation
obtained, usually, from experimental data. The pressure is inscned at the nozzle and a
corresponding flow rate is obtained. An adaptation of SIMPLEC (Semi-Implicit Method
for Partially Linked Equations) [25] is used with sorne modifications ta handle the
complexities arising from the compresstDility of the polymer. Initially, an average tlow
rate is assigned to be the same as the one from the previous time step. This tlow rate
value may not satisfy the continuity equation due to the compressibility of the polymer
under the new subscn"bed pressure values and temperature conditions. Hence, the mass
residue in the continuity equation will not be zero. This mass residue is used to scale the
average tlow rate at the in-flow boundary in order to satisfy the mass balance of the
system. This iterative scaling proc:edure requires keeping the old values of the average
tlowrate and mass residue in order ta interpolate for new tlow rate values. Iterations are
15
carried out until the mass residue dimjnishes in one time step. The packing process is
continued until a closure due 10 solidification occurs. This closure is assumed to occur at
the narrow section of the gate. When the gate closes, the cooling phase begins. During
cooling, the total mass of the melt inside the cavity is considered constant Also, the
volume of the melt inside the cavity is considered to he constant as long as there is
pressure inside the cavity. Since the density of the melt is a fimction oftemperature and
pressure and follows the PVT relationship, it is continually changing. Taking into
consideration the above conditions, the pressure is allowed to decrease inside the cavity
in order to satisfy the PVT relationship.
2.2.3 Boundary conditioDs for the filliDg stage
A fully developed velocity profile is assumed for the in-tlow boundary condition. The
stream lines are constant at the fixed boundaries or walls and the no-slip condition is used
for the evaluation of the vorticity values at tixed boundaries. AIso, the moving ftee
surface is perpendicular to the stream lines since the normal gradient of the stream
function at the free surface vanishes in arder to satisfy the zero shear stress condition
( ~ 1 =0). A rolling ftee surfce boundary condition is used for the advancement
on free surface
ofthe free surface at fixed boundaries. For the solution ofthe energy equation, a constant
melt temperature is used at inlet and adiabatic conditions at moving boundaries. An
overa1l heat transfer coefficient, h, is used for the evaluation of temperature at fixed
boundaries where h(T)=dTldn
2.2.4 BoaBdary cODditiODS for the packiDl aBd cooliDl stages
The no-slip boundary condition is implemented on an tixed boundaries or walls where a1I
the velocities are equal to zero. At the inlet boundary condition, a fully developed
velocity profile is assumed which is continually scaled due to the compressibility of the
melt under the applied pressure. The resultiDg velocity field at the inJet bas ta satisfy the
continuity equation as explained earlier. The pressure boundary condition at inIet is
16
inscnDed by the user. The same thermal boundary conditions used in the tilling stage are
used in this stage except that the inlet condition is adiabatic (negligible melt tlow at inlet)
and that the free surface touches fixed boundaries.
1.2.5 TreatmeDt of the raner
Many of the assumptions considered in the simulation of the injection molding process
do not apply te the runner geometry. The power-law profile assumptiOD, for example, is
not valid anymore in the cylindrical geometry of the nmner. Also, the heat transfer is
significant from aIl sides of the nmner and so on. Therefore, it is necessary solve the
conservation equations descnDing the flow and heat transfer in the cylindrical geometry
ofthe nmner. This is especially impcrtant for the calculation ofpressure in packing, since
the pressure is usually applied at the nozzle.
The cylindrical forms of the momentum and continuity equations are given below in the
cylindrical coordinate system. These equations are expressed in tw<Hlimensional fonn in
terms ofthe axial velocity uand the radial velocity u assuming that there is no change or
variation in the angular direction and that the angular velocity is negligible.
p 1
-+--;;:-(pru) +-(pu) =0
at ror x
a{pu) l a 2 a P
--------+--(pru ) + ~ ( p u u ) =--:-+
t rr ex or
!_("r_U)+_(,,_U) __ '1
U
+Sr
r r r ax x r
2
a(pu) 1 a a 2 ap
--+--(pruu)+-(pu )=--
t rfJr x r
1 a( u) ( u)
-- "r- +- TJ- +8%
rr r x r
(2.26)
(2.27)
(2.28)
17
The additional terms involved in the equations, which ~ the cylindrical
coordinate system are isolated and treated as sources in the Cartesian fonnulation
discussed earlier. This treatment is used instead ofderiving a new discretization equation
for the Equations in the cylindrical coordinate system and ta avoid the complexity of
working with two different coordinate systems for the same grid. This method gives a
good estimate of the solution in the runner. Equations 2.26, 2.27, 2.28 are expressed in
the Cartesian coordinate systemas follows:
(pu) (pu
2
) (puu) P
---+ + ----+
8t ar x r
!-("U)+.!....(Tl U)+(SC
u
+uSP
u
)
r r x x
sc =SC + 11(tJ)
U ,. r r
where
SPu = J pu +!L)
-\ r rI
(pu) (pvu) a(pu
1
) P
--+ +--...-..;..
t r x x
!...(77 u)+.!-('1 U)+(Sc.+uSP.. )
r r x x
sc =SC + 77 (u)
" % r r
where
SP. =_pv
ft
r
(2.29)
(2.30)
(2.31)
Proper linearization ofthe source terms should be implemented incase positive values of
SPri or SPu are encountered. AIso, care shouId be taken in handling the singularity in the
source terms when r reaches zero. The additional source tenDS (due ta the cylindrical
18
coordinate system) should all reduce to zero, as weIL, when r approaches zero. This is
because the velocity in the radial d i r e c t i o ~ u, reduc:es to zero at the symmetry line (r=O).
2.2.6 CaleulatioD of Residual Stresses
For a body in equibriuJn, the stresses must satisfy the equwDrium equations in the three
directions. In Model A, the stress analysis is considered in two dimensions x (tlow
direction) and z (thickness direction) and the equations are simplified using the plane
strain assumption. In the plane strain case, the strain in the transverse direction (y) is very
small compared to the strain in the other dimensions. The equilibrium equations in two
dimensions are as foUows [26]:
(2.32)
where the DOnnai and shear components of the stress are denoted by <1 and t ,
respectively; Fb is the body force per unit volume and is assumed to he zero.
The stresses in equation (2.32) are replac:ed in terms of the strains, using an appropriate
constitutive equation. Thermo-elastic constitutive equations in the plane strain case May
be written as:
(2.33)
where Cf, Et ET, and Sr are the vectors containing the stress, ~ thermal ~ and
pressure strain components, respectively. E and u are the elastic modulus and the Poisson
ratio, respectively.
19
Assuming small displacements, the strains can he related to the displacements as foUows:
(2.34)
u and ware the displacements in the x andz directions, respectively.
The generation of residual stresses in the material is closely related to its PVT behavior.
ln injection molding, especially during packing and cooling, the specifie volume of the
materia! changes non..uniformly as a result of non-uniform variations in temperature,
pressure, and crystallinity. Ifthe materia! defonns freely, an infinitesimal change dVin its
specifie volume leads to a defonnation corresponding to the linear strain dV/3V and no
stress is generated. Snee the temperature, pressure, and crystaIlinity fields are usually not
u n i f o ~ the change in volume varies from one point to another and is thus partly
restricted by adjacent elements. This restriction gives rise to stresses if the material is
"saUd" enough or ifthe molecular relaxation time is sufficiently large for a visco-elastic
materia!. To simplify, it is assumed that the solid material exhibits elastic behavior and
that the linear thermal expansion coefficient a. is constant in the soUd state. As a resuIt,
the isotropie linear thermal strain ET for a temperature drop of AT during the time At is
given by:
(2.35)
The solidification temperature is considered to he the glass transition temperature, Tg, for
an amorphous polymer or the crystaIlization temperature for a semi-crystalline materiaL
Belowthe solidification temperature, the stresses are frozen and are not allowed to relax.
Stress caieuiatioDS start at the end offilling.
20
During packing, high pressure is applied ta the meIt forcing more material into the cavity
to compensate for the shrinkage due 10 coaling and solidification. At the soUd-melt
interface, the melt exerts a normal force, equal to the instantaneous value ofthe pressure
force, ta the solidifying material element. The etfect of this force is ta counteract the
volume decrease in this element by stretching il. The pressure effeet is incorporated into
the calculations by adding ta the thermal strain eT, a pressure strain Ep with a magnitude
equal and opposite to the strain induced in the melt by the packing pressure, as foUows:
(1-2\
&p = P.
E S
(2.36)
where (1-2u)/E is the compressibility for an elastic matenaL The isotropic pressure strain
is induced by increasing the pressure from zero to the solidification pressure Ps. It is
added ta the thermal strain at the time of solidification of each element. It must be noted
that ET is negative and Ep is positive.
Using the above relationships, the equibDrium equation (2.32) can be written in terms of
displacements to obtain the following equations:
( )
iu lw ( l iu lw) ( )&T (I+u)(I-2\))
1-u -ar-z+u-ar-az+ 1-2\)\-az-
2
+-arz- =C1[1+u -ar-+--E--ax
(2.37)
lu ( )elw ( {;lu ;lw) ( )&T
u-+ l-u -+1-2u -+- =C1 1+0 -+----
axz azl araz ar
2
( z E %
or in vector notation:
(2.38)
21
where D is the matrix relating the stress and the strain and gives the relation between
the strain and the displacement vectors.. Kb is the bulk modulus and ET is the thermal
strain. The pressure strain is added at the rime ofsolidification ofeach clement..
At each time step ~ the temperature, pressure, and crystallinity fields are calculated. The
position ofthe soUd-melt interface, the thermal and the pressure strains are obtained. The
c:oupled second order partial differential equations (2.37) are then solved for the
displacements u and w, using the Galerkin Finite.element technique [27]. The
incremental strains and stresses are calculated from the displacements, using equations
(2.33) and (2.34). The residual stresses are computed by integrating the incremental
stresses over time.. Free displacement boundary condition was used at the mold walls.. At
the soUd-melt interface, the nonnal stress is equal to the melt pressure.
The complete injection molding cycle is considered and the velocity, temperature,
pressure, and crystallinity fields are calculated by Madel Aas descn"bed in sections 2.2.1
to 2.2.4.
2.3 DescriptioD of Model B
Model 8 is based on the generalization of the "Lubrication Theory" [28] to non-
isothermal and non-Newtonian inelastic flows, c:alled the "Generalized Hele-Shaw
formulation" (GHS). The essential geometrical requirement ofthis approximation is that
the flow is usually contined in a narrow gap with the variation ofgap height in the lateraI
directions being very smalt In this sense, the velocity component in z-direction can he
neglected and pressure is a fimc:tion of x and y only.. Snce molten polymers have very
high viscosty, this model assumes Cully developed flow in which inertia and body forces
are ignored compared to viscous forces. Also, it is assumed that the material behaves as a
Generalized Newtonian Fluid. Therefore, the viscosity can be descnDed with a suitable
inelastic model such as the Power Law or the Cross Model. Because of these
approximations, this model cannot plediet the exact flow and temperature field near the
22
advancing tlow front or at the edges of the mold. H o w e v e r ~ these regions extend only a
thin layer oforder h in the horizontal plane.
In the energy balance, heat conduction in the direction of tlow is neglected based on the
assumption that the gap dimension is much smaller than the other two dimensions.
Thermal properties (Cp and k) are considered to be constant. For simplicity, this model
assumes that the velocity and temperature are symmetric across the thickness (in the z-
direction).
2.3.1 Goveruing Equations for the Filling Stage
In view of the above considerations and assuming incompressible flow, Equations (2.1)
to (2.3) can expressed as fol1ows:
where S is the "tluidity" ofthe material detined by
r
z2
s= -dz
17
2.3.2 Goveraing Eqa.doD! for the Packial Stage
(2.39)
(2.40)
(2.41)
In this stage, aIl the assumptions regarding material behavior and geometry used in the
previous section are made except tbat the tlow is considered compressible and the
23
pressure is a function of time ooly. Thus, the goveming equations for this stage can he
derived from the continuity, momentumand energy equations as foUows:
(
eT eT eT) P e
2
r
pep -+u-+v- =pr-+<D+k-
et ex y Or Z2
where = ~ (Kdz
1C is the isothermal compressibility coefficient defined by:
1 C = . ! . ( ~ )
P op T
Pis the volume expansion coefficient defined by:
p=_l(8
P
)
p eT p
2.3.3 BouDdary Conditions Cor the FilliDg Stage
(2.42)
(2.43)
(2.44)
(2.45)
(2.46)
The tilling stage problem reduces now to obtaining the numerical solution ta Equations
(2.39) and (2.40) subject to the following boundary conditions: the pressure is zero at the
flow front, and either the pressure or the tlow rate at the point where the melt in injected
is specified. Along the impermeable solid boundarythe condition is 8plan = 0 where a/an
denotes the derivative in the outward normal cfirection. This boundary condition implies
that the no-slip condition aloog the edges of the mold in neglected. As indicated earlier,
this condition isjustified inthat the no-slip effect extends ooly a thin layer oforder h into
24
the cavity. The temperature at the cavity wall or at some point interior to the mold wall is
detined. The temperature gradient in the z-direction is zero at z = 0, and, the melt
temperature at the point of injection is defined.
1.3.4 BoUDdary Conditions for the PaekiDg Stage
In this stage, Equations (2.42) and (2.43) are to he solved subject to the following
boundary conditions: The pressure is defined at the injection point and, along the
impenneable salid boundary the condition is platI =O. The temperature at the cavity
waR or at some point interior ta the mold wall is specified. The temperature gradient in
the z-direction is zero at z = 0, a n ~ the melt temperature at the point of injection is
detined.
2.3.5 TreatmeDt of the runDer
In this analysis, aIl the assumptioDS regarding materiaI behavior used in sections 2.3.1
and 2.3.2 are made except that the governing equations are derived in a system of
cylindrical coordinates (r, 0, x). Within this coordinate s y s t e ~ symmetry is assumed
about the longitudinal axis of the runner or, in other words, 81O = o. AIso, convective
heat transfer in the radial direction is ignored. Using these assomptions, the filling and
packing analyses for the runner can he descnDed as foUows:
During filling:
(
T T) k a( T)
pC -+v - =cD+- r-
Par'a,. rr ar
(2.47)
(2.48)
2S
where S ~ is the tluidity ofthe material given incylindrical coordinates:
1 rr
J
S =- -dT
c 2r Tl
During packing:
~ p2 ap r P { le 0( OT)}
I C ~ " --2 -- <1>+-- r- rdT
ot pep rr ar
-....(rs p)=o
'" c '"'
ox ox
(
oT or) p le a( oT)
pC -+u- =pr-+cD+- r-
P et ex t rr r
(2.49)
(2.50)
(2.51)
where (2.52)
2.4 Numerical Methods
Model A uses the Finite..Volume Method (FVM) ta obtain numerical solution to the
problem. FVM is employed together with the Boundary Fitted Curvilinear Coordinates
transformation (BFCC) ta convert the moving grid into a uniform square grid. The
technique employs a typical general equation for the convection, diffusion and source
terms ta transform from Cartesian coordinate system ( x ~ ) to curvilinear coordinate
system(',ll'). This equation is given as foUows:
26
(2.53)
where r
a =(.%".)2 +(y".)2
P=XrX". +
and the Jacobian oftransfonnation is defined as:
J =xrY". -x",y:,
The indices represent a partial derivative with respect ta the index; Xt andYt represent grid
velocities in the x- and y- directiODS. A more detailed description of this formulation is
given in reference [29].
On the other band, Madel Buses the Galerkin Finite Element Method (FEM) to solve the
pressure equations (2.39,2.42, 2.47, and, 2.49). A three node triangular element is used
to approximate the pressure in the cavity and a two-node element was employed in the
runner. The energy equations (2.40, 2.43, 2.48, and, 2.51) are discretized using the finite
difference method (FDM).
27
Chapter3
ExperiDleDtal
The relevant physical and processing properties of the materials used in the current
investigation are included in the tirst part ofthis chapter. In the second part, a description
ofthe experimental techniques is presented.
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 PolyethyleDe (HOPE).
The polyethylene resin used in the experimen15 was a high-density grade (HOPE) known
as SCLAIR 2908 supplied by NOVA Chemicals. [15 relevant thermophysical data,
transport properties and other characteristic parameters are listed below.
1. Viscosity ( Tf ).
The Power Law Mode1 (Equation 3.1) was used ta descnoe the non-isothermal
dependenc:e of shear viscosity (11) and shear rate (i). The values of the constants were
taken from reference (30) and are presented as follows:
where '1 is shear viscosity in Pas
t is shear rate in Ils
T is temperature in oC
m=3.494 X10
4
C =-1.473 X 10.
2
n =0.755
(3.1)
28
2. Pressure--Volume-Temperature (PVT).
It is necessary ta have a PVT relation when performing the analysis. Experimental PVT
data of SCLAIR 2908 were obtained ftom reference [31] and used ta fit coefficients to
the following empirical model with seven coefficients:
(3.2)
where Vis specifie volume in cm
3
/g
p is pressure in MPa
ai are adjustable parameters
This model has in faet a total ofeleven coefficients since the equation is divided into twa
repons: <D the lower temperature r e g i o ~ which descnoes the salid phase of the materia!
and the solid-melt transition behavior, and (3) the upper temperature region, which
descnees the material melt phase behavior. Although the fonn ofthe equation is the same
for the {Wo regions, the corresponding coefficients take different values. In the upper
temperature region as, Q6 and a7 are set to zero, therefore only eleven coefficients are
required instead of fourteen. Another equation is aIso needed to descnoe the boundary
between the two temperature regions, which is given by:
(33)
The values of the adjustable parameters of Equations (3.2) and (3.3) are listed in Table
3.1. Figure 3.1 shows experimental PVT data ofSclair 2908 aloug with some fltted lines.
29
Table 3.1: Parameters ofthe PITequation. Polyethylene, Sclair 2908
Coefficient
al
a2
aj
Q4
aj
a6
Q7
Lowtemperature region
4.333 X 10
3
9.696 X10.
2
1.706 X 10
2
4.235 X loJ
1.069 X 10-
10
1.517 X10.
1
1.861 X 10.
2
h
r
=-1241.6
hl =8.949
High temperature region
5.449 X10
3
1.407 X 10-
1
1.418 X 1<Y
4.885 X 1&
0 Experimental
OMPa
1.3
- Fitting
~ 50MPa
c:
~ .....
E
100 MPa
u
-
1.2
~
~
"'6
>
u
1.1
(J
~
(J)
1.0
o 50 100 150 200 250
Figll1'e 3.1: Experimental andfittedlmes ofthe specifie volume
versus temperature at different pressures. HDPE, Sclair 2908.
30
3.. Crystallization Idnetics.
Nakamura equation (3.4) was employed to descne the non-isothennal kineties of
crystallization ofSclair 2908. This equation is presented as foUows:
(3.4)
The empirical equation proposed by Ziabieki [32] was used to descnbe the temperature
dependence of the rate constant of c::rystaIlization K(I). From this m o d e ~ the
crystaIlization halftime is given by:
(
lJ ( l ) ~ (T-TmY]
1!t2 = (1!t2).... 1..-4ln(2) d
(3.5)
where tY: is the time to reaeh 50% of crystallinity. The relation between the isothermal
Avrami rate constant z(T) and tV: is given by:
_(ln2)11111
t
l/2
-
Z
(3.6)
where m is the Avrami exponent. Equation (3.7) shows the relation between zm and
Km
(3.7)
The values of the parameters z".., Tm and D were taken fonn reference [33] and are
listed in Table 3.2..
31
Table 3.2: Crystallization lcinetics constants ofSc/air 2908.
n D(K) Tm(K)
1
10.25 X 10].
36.77 370.S
I.S 3.82 x10.
2
40.91 370.5
2 1.37 x10.
2
44.19 370.5
The pressure dependence of T1IfQZ was taken ftom reference [33] and is given as follows:
T
max
=97.S+0.2568P
where Tis in oC and Pis in MPa.
4. Specifie Heat (Cp).
(3.8)
Experimental evidence shows that the specifie heat of Sclair 2908 increases linearly with
temperature up to the crystallization region. In this range, Cp exhibits a sharp peak and
further rise in temperature causes Cp to drop back to the linear function. This behavior is
depicted in Figure 3.2 [34].
3!OQO
30000
SOCIO
O

\
- Experimental
behavior
Cp value used
byModel B
o
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230
Temperature (OC)
Fi'1In J.2: Experimental behaviorofthe specifie heat
andthe average value usedby Model B. Sc/air 2908.
32
A linear function, given by Equation (3.9), was employed to descne the Cp when
performing the calculations using Model A since this model includes the heat generated
by crystallization in the energy equation (see Equation 2.6)
Cp =95+6.158 T
where Cp is in JlkgIK
TininK
(3.9)
Madel Bassumes a constant value. In this case, a more complex function was used to fit
the experimental Cp data and then, an average value was taken from this functiOD. Thus,
for Model8:
where Cp is in JlkgIK
Tis in K
For any TS: 380; m= 3
Ao =-3.819 X 10
5
AI = 3.367 X10
3
A2 =...9.859
A3 =0.964 x10-z
For any 380<TS40S; m=3
Ao =-1.232 X10
Al =9.673 x lOS
Az =-2.531 xIY
A3 =2.208
(3.10)
33
.
Forany 40S<Ts.410; m=1
Ao =2.132 X10
6
AL =S.192 X 10
3
For any 410<1; m= 3
Ao = 2.58S xlOs
Al =-1.685 X10
3
Az=3.674
A3 =-0.266 X10-
2
Average temperature range: 320Ks Ts SOOK
Average Cp value for Model B: 3
t
490 JlkgIK
5.. Thermal conduetivity (k).
A polynomial function was employed to express the temperature dependence of the
thermal conductivity when perfonning the analysis using Model A. This function is given
by Equation (3.. 11):
'"
k=
c:O
where kin W/mIK
TinK
For the soUd phase; m=S
Ao = 5.153 x loJ
Al =-1.139 X10
2
A2=3.645
A3 = -S.758 X10..
2
= 4.237 X 10'"
As = -1.177 X IO.(i
(3.11)
34
For the liquid phase; m=3
~ = -2.653 X10
3
Al = 9.418 X101
A2 = -5.678 X10.
1
AJ = 1.161 X 10.
3
Snce Madel B requires a constant value, a k average was taken from Equation (3.11)
across the processing melt temperature range (from 130C to 220
0
e). Thus, for Model B:
le = 0.269 W/mIK
Figure 3.3 shows the function values used by Madel A and the average value used by
ModelB.
.~
0.40 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . ,
0.38
~ 0.36
~
i 0.34
~
~ 0.32
'C
c
8
_ 0.30
al
E
! 0.28
026
-ModelA
Madel B
250 200 100 150
Temperature (OC)
50
0.24 +------r------T"'"----r--------.,.----f
o
Figure J.3: Thermal conductivity values olSelair 2908
usedby Madel andMadel B.
35
6. Other properties.
Table (3.3) contains some other values.
Table 3.J: Other valuesjr polyethylene.
Property Value
Average elastic modulus (E) 971 MPa
Poisson ratio (v) 033
Thermal expansion coefficient (al)
II xl O ~ IIK
Amorphous modulus (E.) 430MPa
Crystalline modulus (E) 5700 MPa
Heat transfer coefficient (h) 600W/m"'/K
Thermal conductivity of mold Metal 24 W/mIK
(Stainless Steel AISI Type 410)
Density ofmold Metal 7,700 kglm
J
Distance between the cooling 13.5 mm
channeis and the mold surface
Melt density 750 glcm
J
(at 220 oC and zero pressure)
No flowtemperature 130C
3.1.2 PolystyreDe (PS)
The polystyrene resin used was Styron 6850 kindly supplied by Dow Chemicals Canada.
Its relevant properties are listedbelow.
1. Viscosity ( " ).
A Rheometrics Dynamic Analyzer (RDA II) used in paralIel plate configuration and an
Instron Capillary Rheometer were employed to obtain data on shear viscosity as a
36
fimction of both shear rate and temperature. With these coefficients of the Cross-
WU equation were titted. This viscosity model was used when analyzing Model A. On
the other band, an empirical 6-coefficient viscosity model was employed in Model B
calculations. Both models are descnDed below.
Cross-WLF:
,,_ 1/0
'f - ( )0-/1)
1+ 'lo:
T
(3.12)
(3.13)
where Tl is shear vscosity in Pas
t is shear rate in lis
n= 0.336
t = 2.267 X10'
Dl = 4.091 X 10
11
r- =373
Al = 12.043
Az =48.37
6-coefficient model: [n(,,) =Al + +A
3
T+ +As (Iny)T + (3.14)
where Tl is shear visc:osity in Pas
t is shear rate in Ils
A, =23.516
Az=-I.S0S7
AJ = -9.638 X 10.
2
A., =-4.. 184 X 10.
2
37
As =S.679 X 10-
3
A6= 1.312 X10-
3
Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 show experimental data for the shear viscosity as a function of
shear rate at various temperatures for Styron 685D. Sorne fitting lines are aIso included in
these figures using the two rheological models descn"bed above.
2. Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT).
Experimental PVT data were taken tlom reference [26] and used to fit the adjustable
parameters of Equations (3.2) and (3.3). The values ofthese constants are given in Table
3.4. Figure 3.6 shows the PVT data and the fitted curves.
Table 3.4: Parameters ofthe Pn' equation. Polystyrene, Styron 685D
Coefficient
al
a]
aJ
a.,
as
Q6
3. Specifie Reat (Cp).
Low temperature region
4.451 X 10
3
3.987 X10.
2
148.01
4.660 x10
3
o
o
o
hl =-229.93
h
2
= 2.165
High temperature reion
4.695 xloJ
9.909 x10.
2
166.65
5.099 x 10
3
Equation 3.15 was employed to descn"be the temperature dependence of the specifie heat
when using Model A.
(3.15)
38
100x1Q3 .,.---------------------,
a experimental at 200C
v experimental at 21OC
a experimental at 220C
- fitting at 200C
- fitting at 210C
- - fitting at 220C
1000 100 10 0.1
100x100 +--------T---_---__----.------!
0.01
Shear rate (1/s)
Figure 3.4: Experimental viscosity data ofStyron 685D
fitted with the Cross - WLFmodeI.
"1
100x1Q3 -r---------------------.,
en 10x1Q3
m
c.
.....,
ii
8
;. 1x1Q3
o experimental at 200C
'il experimental at 210C
o experimental at 220C
- fitting at 200C
- fittingat210C
a-s - - fttting at 220C

1000 100 10 1 0.1

100x10
0

0.01
Shear rate (1/s)
Fi,,,,, 3.5: Experimental viscosity data ofStyron 685D
fitted the 6-coefficients empirical model
1.06
1.04
-
CD
~ 1.02
S
1 1.00
:s
> 0.98
i
1 0.96
CIJ
0.94
0.92
o Experimental data
- Fitting
OMPa
20MPa
40MPa
eOMPa
SOMPa
100MPa
20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 160 1S0 200 220 240
Temperature eC)
Fig",e 3.6: Experimental andfitted p ~ data
ofStyron 685D
The constants ofEquation 3.15 are given as fol1ows:
Cp is specifie heat in IlkgIK
T is temperature in K
CP! = 1730
Cp2=2.1
CP3 = 172
Cp., =0.155
Cps=359
These values were taken from reference [35]. Note that these values correspond to
PS 678E from Dow Chemicals. An average value from T=293K to T=46SK was
caIculated from Equation (3.15) to obtain the single value required by model B. This Cp
average is equal to 1,812 IlkgIK. Figure 3.7 shows the Cp values used in the simulations.
40
2200 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
2000
'ca
~ 1800
li
.!
Ji 1600
8-
CI)
1400
-MadeIA
ModelB
1200 +--'--r"---.---__- - r - - . . , . . . . - - - - - r - - r - - ~ _ _ _ r _ - . . . . . , _ _ _ _ ;
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Temperature (-C)
Fi'lUt 3.1: Specifie heat ofStyron 678E
4. Thermal conductivity (k).
Dow Chemical supplied experimental data for the thermal conductivity of this resin.
These data were used to fit coefficients of a second order polynomial given by Equation
(3.16). This equation was used when analyzing Madel A.
where kin W/mIK
TinK
ko=O.l24
k[ =1.3 X 10
4
k
z
=-1.0 X 10-
7
(3.16)
For Madel B, a single value was caIculated ftom Equation (3.16) by averaging k across
the melt temperature range (from 160 oC to 260 oC). In Figure 3.8, the le values used by
both Models are depicted.
41
0.186 ,....-------------------,
~ 0.164
~
~ 0.162
l:-
~ 0.160
~
"80.158
o Experimental data
- ModelA
ModeiB
'li
E
0.156
..
G)
.J:.
t-
0.154
0.152
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (OC)
Figure 3.8: Experimental data ofthe thermal conductivity of
Styron 685Dand the values usedin the simulations.
'1 5. Other properties.
Table (3.S) contains some other values.
Table 3.5: Other values for polystyrene.
Property Value
Elastic modulus (E) 2300MPa
Poisson ratio (v) 035
Thermal expansion coefficient (lI)
7 X 1 0 - ~ 1/1(
Reat transfer coefficient (h) 600 W/rrflK
Thermal conduetivity ofmold Metal 24 W/mIK
Density ofmold Metal 7,700 kglm
J
Distance between the cooling 13.5 mm
Melt density 930 'i/cm
j
No tlowtemperature 180C
42
. ~
3.2 IDjeetioD MoldiDg_
The injection molding was carried out in The J. B. Phillips Polymer Processing
Laboratory situated at McGill University. A 6o-ton Danson Metalmec reciprocating
injection molding machine was used. Some of its general specifications are given in
Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Specifications ofthe Injection Mo/ding Machine.
Electric Motor 14.92 kW, 3phase, 60Hz
Hydraulic Pump (injection unit) Sperry-Vckers vane pump, 1.82 m31hr
tlowat 13.8 MPa
Clamping Force 60 T(53,386 kN)
Capacity 2 113 on (66.1 g)
ScrewDiameter 35 mm
ScrewLID Ratio IS
Screw Rotation Speed 40-150 rpm
The barrel is equipped with four electrical heating bands. The temperatures are controlled
independently within 3 OC with respect 10 the set points. The operation ofthe machine is
fully automated. A PS/2 compatible persona! computer with an i80486 DX CPU hosts
and executes the control software. With this software, the user is able to specify varions
operating conditions.
Various experiments were carried out. Each experiment, or run, corresponds to one set of
processing conditions. Tables 3..7 and 3.8 Iist the conditions used in the injection molding
experiments..
43
Tllle J.7: Processing conditionsfor injection moldingofPolyethylne.
Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Packing Pressure 37 37 37 28 41 35 35
(MPa)
Coolant Temperature 21 13.4 41.7 21 21 21 21
(OC)
Melt Temperature 220 220 220 220 220 200 240
(OC)
Holding Time 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
(s)
Filling Time 1.7 1.8 1.8 3.95 1.3 2.0 1.7
(s)
Table J.8: Processing conditionsfor injection mo/dingofPolystyrene.
Run 1 2 3 4 5
Packing Pressure 33 33 36 26 34
(MPa)
Coolant Temperature 21 14 41 21 21
(OC)
Meit Temperature 263 263 263 263 243
(OC)
Holding rime 32 32 32 32 32
(5)
Filling Time 1.0 0.93 0.9 2.1 1.15
(s)
The injection molding operation, onder the specified proc:essing conditions, was repeated
ta produce 30 specimens ta ensure steady state. In order to mjnimize stress relaxation and
creep in the specimens, they were stored at -20 oc.
The present study deaIs with the injection molding of a rectangular piece with the
following dimensions: 100 mm x 62 mm x 3 mm. Iwo different sprues were used for
each matenaL Figures 3.9 shows the Khematic diagramofthe polymer devery systems.
Table 3.9 Iists the corresponding dimensions.
44
~ [ ~ I : - - ~ ----,t2Rs(
tLI
Figure 3.9: The schematic diagram afthe polymer de/ivery system and the cavity.
Table 3.9: The polymer delivery system andthe cavity geometry. (Distances in mm)
Label Description Polyethylene Polystyrene
L
s
Length ofsprue 104 104
Rs, Initial radius ofsprue 5.4 4.8
Rs2
Final radius ofsprue 9.4 8.4
L
r
Length ofthe runner 16 16
~
Radius ofthe nmner 8 8
L
g
Length ofthe gate 3 3
W
g
Width ofthe gale 7.6 7.6
Le: Length ofthe cavity 100 100
Wc Width ofthe cavity 62 62
2H Thickness orthe cavity 3 3
45
The computational domain was defined according ta these dimensions. For Model A, the
cavity was divided into 580 non-orthogonal curvilinear elements. For Model B, the cavity
was divided into 1363 triangular elements. The ;r- axis which, represents the tlow
direction, was located at Wc (the plane of symmetry). The y- axis, which detines the
width was located at the gate, and the z- axis which, represents the thickness
direction, was positioned at 2H (the plane ofsymmetry).
3.3 Determination of Residu" Stresses.
In this investigation, residual stresses in injection molded flat plates were determined
experimentally using the layer removal technique. In this method, thin layers of uniform
thickness are removed from one surface of a reetangular specimen. Due ta the uneven
surface produced along the centerline of the plaque, specimens were taken from a
location offcenter, as shown in Figure 3.10.
Omm
Omm
Dmm
Dmm E
C 1
G
2
CV
Gat

SPECIMEN
P=pressure tnasducer
-,
r"",e3.10: Location ofthe specimen in the injection moldedplaque
fr the residual stress experiments
The layers were successively removed using a milling machine and a two-tlute endmill
cutter rotating at high speed, taking care ta hold the specimen flat in a precision vice
46
during cutting, to ensure unifonn thickness of each layer removed. The layers were
always removed from the side opposite to the ejector, and the deflection was measured
usng an optical system. This system consists mainly of a light source directed onto the
target specimen, a visualization system of macro-lens for magnification, a video camera,
and a data acquisition system with computer to grab the image and ta measure its
magnification and position. For each measurement, the specimen could travel in a
horizontal position stood by its ends on two supports. Its axial position was adjusted
using a micrometer screw device connected to the system and a stationary length scale.
Readings were taken in Smm intervals. In this way, it was possible ta measure the
detlection and calculate the curvature at any position along the specimen flow path. The
total profile was subdivided equally into three segments (sec Figure 3.10), and the
curvature and stresses were assumed to he constant within each segment [36]. The mid-
points of the segments (2Omm apart) were labeled Q, C, and E, meaning near the gate,
center location and near the end ofthe cavity, respectively.
On removal ofa layer, the curvature 1C was calculated form:
(3.17)
where L is the length of the chard subtended by the arc of the segment, and +is the
detleetion, taken as the distance from the cord to the arc at the midpoint at the cord.
The curvature data points obtained from a segment were fitted by linear regression with
the best high order polynomial. The stress distribution was calculated using the stress-
curvature r e l a t i o ~ derived by Treuting and Read [37], with a suitable value of elastic
modulus, E, and Poisson's mtion, '" ofthe specimen material, as follows:
47
where z is the remaining distance along baIf of the thickness of the specimen and is
measured from zero at the core, and b is the specimen's halfthickness. The derivative
and the integral of the curvature in Equation (3.18) were obtained by fitting polynomial
functioDS. Ta minjmize stress relaxation and creep, the detlection was always measured
within Sminutes ofremoving the layer.
48
Chapter4
Resalu lad DiscussioD
In this chapter, the results of the numerical implementation of two mathematical models
for the simulation of thermoplastics injection molding are presented and compared with
experimental data. In order to analyze the effect of various processing parameters on the
main predictions, a set of experiments with different conditions was performed for each
material. Special attention was given ta the pressure evolution close to the cavity gate and
to the development of residual stresses.
4.1 Polyethylene.
4.1.1 Pressure
Pressure development in the cavity near the gate and in the nozzle was examined.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the typical pressure versus time corve obtained in ail polyethylene
experiments. As shown in this figure, the pressure in the cavity increases linearly during
the filling stage. The end of tilling is recognized by the sudden increase in the cavity
pressure. This moment, in its tom, indicates the begiDning of the packing stage. During
packing, a high packing pressure is held in the nozzle while in the cavity, close ta the
gate, the pressure remains at a high level as weiL The filet that the cavity pressure stays
high implies tbat the materia1 is still in the malten state and more polymer is being
injected. As the packing continues, the gate pressure decreases slightly and then increases
again. This MaY he due to a combination of four effects: solidification, crystallization,
compression and expansion. When packing, the large ditTerence in bath temperature and
mass between the mold m ~ and the melt causes the plastic ta cool very fast. However,
the heat generated by crystallization tends to delay the solidification process. While the
plastic is in. the Iiquid phase, any large pressure applied on it will cause more
compression. On one band, this compression tends to increase the density of the mohen
49
plastic; on the other, the applied pressure increases the intemal energy of the system,
which is transformed into heal As a result of this, the melt expands (or the density
diminishes) and the pressure and temperature ofthe systemtend ta increase counteracting
the cooling effe<:t. Although the velocities are very small in this stage, the pressure rises
and the temperature decreases, as a result ofthe combined effect mentioned above. At the
end of packing, the gate solidifies completely; therefore, the nozzle pressure does not
influence the cavity anymore, and the compression etrect vanishes. T h e ~ the pressure in
the cavity stans to decay faster fol1owing its thermodynamic PVT behavior.
30
-
t'li
Q. 20
2
-
!
=ra
(ft 10
!
Q.
o
Packing
.1. CooUng
..
35 30 25 10 5 o 15 20
TIme(s)
Fig"re 4.1: Typical experimental pressure evolution al different positions.
Polyethylene experlmenlS.
--e- ln the cavity near the gate
-- ln the nozzle
Figures 4.2 to 4.8 show the pressure evolution in the cavity and in the nome obtained
with both Model A and Model B for each of the experiments referred in Table 3.7.
Comparisons of model predictions with experimental data are also included in these
figures.
50
ModelA
40
.-.
30
r. ca
Q.
~
2
- Predicted cavity
-
1
-- Predieted nozzle
! 20
1 0 Experimental cavity
:J
II)
1
A
Experimental noule II)
!
(
Q.
10
t
1
0
Model B
40
-1
30
.-.
ca
Cl.
2
-
! 20
:J
(1)
(1)
!
Cl.
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
- Predicted cavity
- - Predicted nozzle
o Experimental cavity
A Experimental noule
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (5)
Figure. 4.2: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in the
cavity close to the gate andin the nozzle. Polyethylene, Run 1.
ModelA
40
-30
tU
a.
-
! 20
:2
=
!
CL 10
o

.-rW't_.rtll"'t)

l
[
1
1
1
1
1
- Predided cavity
Experimental nozzJe
Madel B
40
1 'f
30
0
-tU
0
Cl..
0
- Predicted cavity
-
- - Predided nozzle
! 20 0
:s
0 Experimental cavity
(1)
0

Experimental nozzJe (1)
!
0
a.
10
0
0
0
0
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time(s)
Figllte 4.3: Experimental andpredietedpressure histories in the
cavity close to the gate and in the nozzle. Polyethy/ene
t
Run 2.
40
! 20
::s
(1)
(1)
!
CL 10
o
ModelA
- Predicted cavity
- - Predieted nozzJe
a Experimental nozzle
Madel B
40
. ~
--.
30 a
as
0
a.
2
a
- Predicted cavity
-
0
- - Predieted nozzJe
! 20
1
0
::s
en
{
0
a
Experimental nozzle en
!
r
0
Q.
10 0
1
0
(
0
0
0
OQ
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (s)
Figrue 4.4: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in the
cavity close to the gate andin the nozzle.. Polyethylene. Run 3.
ModelA
40
..-. 30
ca
a.
2
-
! 20
::s
CI)
CI)
!
a.. 10
o
/
~
1
,
1
- Predicted cavity
6- Experimental nozzte
Model B
40
..-.
30
ca
a.
~
- Predided cavity
-
- - Predided nozzJe
! 20
='
=
6-
Experimental nozzle
!
Q.
10
o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (5)
FiglUe 4.5: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in the
cavity close to the gate and in the nozzle. Polyethylene, Rzm 4.
ModelA
o
40
.-
30
tU
~
2
- Predicted cavity
~
! 20
='
fi)
fi) A
Experimental nozzle
!
a.
10
Model B
40
0
.-
30
0
ftS 0
a.
2
a
- Predicted cavity
~
1 - - Predicted nozzle
! 20
0
='
1
'b
a Experimental cavity
(1)
(1)
1
a
A
Experimental nozzle
!
1
%
a.
10
1
%
r CO
a
0
o 5 1a 15 20 25 3Q 35 40 45 50 55
Time (5)
Figure 4.6: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in the
cavity close ta the gare andin the nozzle. Polyethylene, Run 5.
40
! 20
~
CI)
CI)
!
~ 10
o
40
ModelA
/-
1.6
~
1
1
1
1
1
1
Madel B
- Predieted cavity
li. Experimental nozzle
"....
30
CI
0
Cl.
:E
0
- Predicted cavity
-
0
- - Predieted nozzle
! 20
:J 0
CI)
li.
Experimental nozzle CI)
0
Q)
0
a.
10
0
0
0
0
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time(s)
Figlll'e 4.7: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in the
cavity close to the gate andin the nozzle. Polyethylene, Run 6.
40
.- 30
-
! 20
UJ
UJ
!
CL 10
o
40
ModelA
tfill"-
1
P
1
1
1
1
Madel B
- Predieted cavity
- - Predicted nozzJe
Experimental noule
.- 30
tU
0
Il 0 - Predicted cavity
- - - Predided nozzJe
! 20
0
::J 1
0
Experimental cavity
en
1

Experimental nozzJe fi)
0
!
{ 0
10
1
0
4
et,
0 co
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (s)
Figure 4.8: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in the
cavity close to the gate andin the nozzle. Run 7.
In aIl cases, Model A prediets with more precision the pressure evolution in the cavity
and in the nozzIe. Model B predicts eariier gate freeze time than experimental data, which
indicates a high cooling rate that affects aIso the pressure during filling since the viscosity
increases substantially when the temperature decreases. As a result, the pressure is over-
predicted during filling.
Experimental data obtained from the high-pressure experiment (Run 5) show that the
mold defonned under these processing conditions since the pressure did not reach zero
after the end ofcooliDg.
Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show predicted pressure distributions in the cavity during fling.
The evolution of the flow front movement is also depicted. As descnoed in section 2.4,
Madel A uses a numerically generated finite difference grid each tinte step the melt
moves in the cavity, while Madel Bemploys a fixed finite element mesh. For this reason
t
Model A grid generation technique gives more realistic Dow fronts as can he clearly seen
in these figures. The final pressure distnoution at the end of tilling is given in Figure
4.11. As discussed previously, Model Bover-prediets the pressure during tilling.
4.1.2 Residual Stresses
Figures 4.12 to 4.lS show residual stress profiles obtained in the experimental and
computational work. The stresses were measured using the layer removal technique
descnoed in section 3.3. Experimental profiles show tensile (positive) stresses on the
surface and small stresses, close ta zero, in the core ofthe sample. Predicted stresses are
based on a complete simulation of the injection molding process using Model A. The
predicted values exhibit tensile stresses on the surface, as in the experiments
9
while
compressive (negative) stresses were round in the core. In spite ofthis discrepancy, the
predicted general behavior shows very good consistency with the measured one.
However, calculated stresses are over-predetedclose to the mold wall.
58
\Iu
\1Ia
Mn-19.9 \1Pa
MI.- 0.0
'lu
lU
)0.- 0 MPa
Mi.

.-;
Fi,,,,e 4.9: Pressure contours andeva/ution olthefree usingModel A
Top: 0.63s; Middle: 0.9&; Bottom: 1.4&; Rrml, Polyethylene..
59
Mu-17.JMP.
0.0 MPa
Mu
Mas - 19.3 M'.

Mi. 0.0 M'.
Mu Mi

Mi. 0.0
Mu Mill
Figure 4.10: Pressure contours andevolution olthefree surface usingMadel B

Top: 0.. 779; Middle: 1.029; Bottom: 1.559; Run l, Polyethylene.
60
40
30
.---..
20
ta
a.
10
~
.......,
0
(ft
CI)
-10
!
..
-20 UJ
-30
-40
40
30
.---..
20
ta
a.
10
~
.......,
0
CI)
Cf)
-10
@
..
-20 en
..30
-40
tiI
40
-.-1
30
.---..
20
as
a.
10
~
---
0
(ft
Cf)
-10
l!!
..
-20 UJ
-30
-40
Gate
-
( ~
0 0
0
ce
.0
O.
O. o 0
00
~
~
Center
~
~
~
( ~
:> .0
o
o.
o 0
0
0
o
ce
0
End
~
~
( ~
o ~
o
0
0
D 0
o
0 .0
O. 0
~

..
~
~
~
1
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
..30
-40
40
30
20
10
o
..10
-20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
30
-40
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIH
0.6 0.8 1.0
FiglUe 4.11: Experimental andpredictedresidual stress
distribution using Madel A. Polyethylene, Run 1.
Filleddots: prediction; Empty dots: experimental
40
30
........
20
al
a.
10
~
---
0
(ft
(ft
-10
!
...
-20 en
-30
-40
40
30
...-..
20
ca
CL.
10
~
---
0
(ft
(ft
-10
!
..
-20 CIJ
-30
-40
40
30
.-..
20
ca
CL.
10
:!
---
0
fi)
fi)
-10
!
...
-20 CIJ
-30
-40
.
Gate
~
. ~
"
0 0
0.
i
0
0
~
Od>
-
...
-
Center -
-
...
~
O d ~

0
0
.0
0
.0 O.
i
-

End
~
~
( ~
O ~
o ~
0
~
0
0. ~
0
0
0

-
-
T
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIH
0.6 0.8 1.0
Figlll'e 4.12: Experimental andpredictedresidual stress
distribution usingModel A. Polyethylene, Run 2.
Fi//ed dots." prediction; Empty dots: experimental..
40
30
~
20
al
Q.
10
::!
.........
0
en
en
-10
!
...
-20 rn
-30
-40
40
30
..-.
20
as
a.
10
::!
.........
0
en
en
-10
!
i5 -20
-30
40
1
...
40
30
.......
20
ca
C.
10
::E
.........
0
en
fi)
-10
!
..
-20 UJ
-30
-40
Gate -
-
cl!
()
0
0
0
~

O.
00
0
-
~
Center
-
-
-

-
dl
')
~
0
~
0
o.
00
00
-

-
-
-
End
~
d'
<D
0
0
~
0
o o 0 0
~
T 1
40
30
20
10
o
-10
20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIH
0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 4.13: Experimental andpredictedresidual stress
distribution using Madel A. Polyethylene, Run 3.
Filleddots: prediction; Empty dots: experimental.
40
Gate
40
30 30
"""""" 20 20
as
c..
10
10
~
.......
0 00
O.
.0.
., a
0
fi)

:>
fi)
!
-10
-10
..,
-20
(J)
-20
-30 -30
-40 -40
40
Center
40
30 30
"""""" 20 20
as
c..
10

10
~
.......
0
o ~
0
0
0
fi)

o. .0.
-=>
fi)
-10
..10
!
..,
...20
-20 UJ
-30 -30
-40 -40
40
End
40
30 30
.--..
20 20
ca
c..
10 10
:i
.......
0
o ~
~ 0
0
0
fi)
o. 0
fi)
!
-10 -10
..
-20 -20 en
-3D -30
-40 -40
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zJH
Fi/leddots: prediction; Empty dots: experimental.
40
30
""""
20
ca
~
10
~
~
0
en
en
-10
!
...
-20 en
-30
40
40
30
"""" 20
tG
Q.
10
~
~
a
en
en
-10
!
...
20 en
-30
-40
40
30
.......
20
ca
a.
10
~
"-"
0
(1)
(1)
-10
!
..
20 UJ
-30
40
~
Gate
~
~
~
~
o ( ~
.. p
0
0
Ce
0
o
o
00
o l-
l-
~
~
~
Center
o ( ~
)
0
0
~
0 o
o. 0
0
0

-
~
End
l-
~
oo(D
p
0
~
.0
O.
o
0
0
0
~
~
~
~
1 T
40
30
20
10
o
-10
-20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
a
-10
-20
-30
-40
40
30
20
10
a
-10
~ 2 a
30
-40
0.0 0.2 0.4
zJH
0.6 0.8 1.0
FiglUe 4.15: Experimental andpredictedresiduoI stress
FilLed dots: prediction, Empty dots: experimental.
Figures 4.16 to 4.18 showthe influence ofvarious processing conditions on the residual
stresses using Model A. The effect ofcoolant and melt temperatures do not seem ta affect
the stresses considerably. However, the effcct ofpacking pressure bears upon the stresses
substantially. In all cases, increasing the packing pressure causes tensile and compressive
stresses to increase.
The evolution of the stress profile is depieted in Figure 4.19. At the end oftilling (1.7 s)
the stresses are zero. Model Astarts to compute residual stresses after the filling stage bas
tinished. Although this assumption is not realistic sinee the tlow of viscoelastic melts
implies the development of normal stresses, it can be justified by considering tlow
stresses much smaller tban thermal stresses [38). During packing, zero stresses are found
near the core, while close to the surface, equihrium of tensile and compressive stresses
is observed. After Il seconds, the characteristic stress profile obtained in the simulations
is achieved: tensile stresses on the surface, compressive stresses in the core. During
cooling, stresses diminish gradually until they reach the final distribution.
4.1.3 CrystalliDity
Model A predicts the crystallinity when perfonning the analysis of crystalline and
semicrystalline polymers such as HDPE. Figures 4.20 te 4.22 show how the flow and the
heat transfer phenomena affect the evolution ofthe crystallinity distribution in the cavity.
After the end of filling, MOst material in the cavity is in the amorphous state sinee it is
still a melL However, due to the large coaling rate al the walls, sorne degree of
crystallinity is encountered at these locations. Figure 4.20 shows that at 10 seconds more
than 213 of the polymer have not crystallized yel. However, when observing the
crystallinity distribution in the xy-plane at I!SH and II2H from the center, crystals begin
to appear where the coaling rate is higher. Figures 4.21 and 422 depict the influence of
the tlow phenomena on the crystallinity evolution in the cavity. Figure 4.23 shows the
crystallinity evolutionacross the thickness. Lower crystallinity is encountered close to the
core than near the wall in the early stages ofthe crystallization proc:ess (from5s to 15s).
66
15
Gate
15
10 10
"...,.
al
Q.
5 5
:!
~
0 0
fi)
.",..,.. ---- --- - -
fi)
! -5 ~
~ -
-5
..,
./ rn
/ 10 -10
15
r
15
25
Center
25
20
.)1
20
"...,.
ca
15 15
Q.
~
10 10
~
en
5 y 5
fi)
!
...
0
------ ~ ~
0
en
5
----_._.----.
-5
10 -10
40
End
1
40
"...,.
30
li
30
ta
a.
~ 20 20
~
~ /
,
(/)
(1)
10 10
!
..,
-V
en
0 0
----- --- - - - - ~ _.
-10
----- .
...10
~ .
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zIH
FigllFe 4.16: The effct ofpac/dngpressure on the predicted
residual stresses usingModel A, Polyethylene.
Solid lme: Paclcingpressure =37MPa (Run 1)
Dash fine: Packingpressure =28 MPa (Run 4)
Dash-Dot line: Paclcingpressure = 41 MPa (Run 5)
15
10
5
0
...5
10
15
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
40
30
20
10
a
-10
0.8 1.0 0.4 0.6
zIH
15
Gate
10
as
C-
5
:E
'-'
0
fi)
fi)
! -5
..
en
..10
-15
25
Center
20
ca
15
CL
:E
10
'-'
en
5 ri)
!
0
..
en
-5
..10
40
End
30
ca
CL
20
'-'
ri)
ri)
10
!!
...,
CIJ
0
-10
0.0 0.2
FiglO'e 4.17: The effect ofcoo/ant temperature on the predicted
residual stresses usingMadel A, Polyethylene.
Salidline: Mold temperature =210C (Run 1)
Dash line: Mold temperature =130C (Run 2)

15
Gate
15
10 10
......".
as
0-
S 5
::i
--...
0 0
(ft
CfJ
! -5
..5
..
en
-10 ..10
15 -15
25
Center
25
20 20
......".
ta
15 15
0-
~
10 10
~
(ft
5 5
(ft
!
0 0
..
CJJ
-5
..5
-10
..10
40
End
40
......".
30 30
as
a.
~ 20 20
--...
(ft
(ft
10 10
!
..
CI)
0 0
-10 -10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zJH
Figure 4.1B: The effeet ofmelt temperature on the predicted
resiuaI stresses usingModel A, Polyethylene.
Salidline: Melt temperature =2200C (Run 1)
Dash fine: Melt temperature =2000C(Run 6)
Dash-Dot line: Melt temperature =2400C(Run 7)
30
20
-.- 1.7 s
-al
CL
10
-.- 55
:!
-(1)
en
0
~ 6 5
!
- fIJ
-+-75
-10 ....e
~
-+- 85
[3"'"
-20
-.- 95
-e-- 105
30
~ - 1 1 s
-A- 12 s
20 ~ 2 5 s
- --&-- 30 s ca
~
10
2
-
~ - Final
en
en
!
0
Di
-10
-20
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zlH
Fig.te 4.19: Evolution ofresidual stresses close to the gate
using Madel A.. Run l ~ Polyethylene
70
Max =24.7 %
Min =0..0 %
r"",e4.20: Predietedcrystallinity distribution in the cavity
at 10 seconds usingModel A. Run l, Polyethylene
xy-plane
at 1/5 H
from the
core
xy-plane
at 112 H
from the
core
xy-plane
at4/5 H
from the
core
xz-plane
(halfthe
thickness)
a n d a t ~ W
71
Max = 44.1 %
Min=0.0 %
Figure 4.21: Predictedcrysta11initydistribution in the cavity
at 15seconds usingMadel A. Run 1, Polyethylene
xy-plane
at 1/5 H
fromthe
core
xy-plane
at 112 H
trom the
core
xy-plane
at41S H
from the
core
xz-plane
(balfthe
thickness)
a n d a t ~ W
72
Max=S2.2%
Max = 0.0 %
Fillll'e 4.22: Predietedcrystallinity distribution in the cavity
at 20 seconds usingMadel A. Rm1, Polyethylene
xy-plane
al 1/5 H
ftomthe
core
xy-plane
at 112 H
from the
core
xy-plane
at4/5 H
framthe
core
xz-plane
(balfthe
thickness)
a n d a t ~ W
73
GATE:
1/10 L
80.0
112W
-

'#
-
40.0
__/ir--
b

c
li
20.0
,-
,./
0
.,../
-'
0.0
-e- 5 sec.
CENTER:
112 L
60.0
112W
10 sec.
-

'#.
__ -4r--
-
40.0
b
c
,.-
-e- 15 sec.
li
20.0
.,./
0 ,k/
-Ir"'"
0.0
-
.,
--- 20 sec
so.o
END:
9/10 L
112W
-e- 25 sec.

-
40.0
c:
J 20.0
CJ
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zIH
Fig",e 4.23: Evolution ofcrystaIlinity across the thiclcness
al threepositions in the cavity
However, as the cooling process evolves, crystallinity increases more in the high
temperature regions than on the walIs since close to the boundaries the materia! bas
already solidified and is much below its crystalli
z
a1on temperature.
In order to validate these observations, simulation results were compared with
experimental evidence. Figure 4.24, iIlustrates final crystallinity distributions predieted
by Model A along with experimental data. Reasonable agreement is round between
computations and measured values. However, Model A tends ta underestimate
crystallinity close to the surface ofthe mold.
4.1.4 Temperature
Evolution of the temperature distribution aemss the thickness predicted by Madel Aand
Madel 8 is depieted in Figures 4.25 to 4.29 in which, dimensionless temperature (fJ) is
detined as 8 =(T-Tw)/(f",-T
w
). When filling, temperature decreases much faster close ta
the walls according ta Madel Bcalculations. This is because this model assumes perfeet
contact on the surface, instead of considering a heat transfer coefficient. This extteme
condition affects the viscosity and pressure predictions, as discussed in section 4.1.1.
Also, Model B calculates umealistic temperature promes close to the melt front in the
early stages ofthe injection cycle. At 10 seconds (Figure 4.27), Model Apredicts that the
temperature acress the thickness decreases homogeneously at the gate, at the center and,
at the end ofthe cavity, while Madel B calculates higher temperature values close ta the
gate.
Figures 4.30 and 4.31 show the midplane temperature evolution across the length of the
cavity during filling. Both models calculate the heat generated by viscous dissipation near
the same values. However, the temperature distribution at the end of tilling is highly
affected by the fountain Dow and the heat transfer in the xy direction. In sections 2.2 and
2.3, it is mentioned tbat Model A considers fountain tlow and heat transfer in the three
directioDS
9
while Model Bignores fountain tlowand heat transfer in the xy-plane.
75
~ 60.0 0
-
~ 40.0
i:
J! 20.0
~ Results at
(J 0.0 9/10 L
112W
o
o
o
o
~ 60.0 r---------- .:O:- ~ O a a 0
~ 40.0
c:
~ 20.0
c: Results at
(J 0.0 112 L
112W
~ 60.0 r- O O O__~
~ 40.0
c:
i 20.0
~ Results at
(J 0.0 1/10 L
112W
a 0
~ ~ ~ 0 0
e... r-----43------------- ~
~ 40.0
c:
.@. 20.0
C' 'Results at
(J 0.0 1/2 L
113W
o
o 0
o
o o ;e 60.0
~ r------------or----- _
b 40.0
c:
l 20.0
c: Results at
(J 0.0 1110 L
113W
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIH
0.6 0.8 1.0
Fi,lUe 4.24: Meassured (circ/es) andpredicted(fines) crystaHmityprofiles using
Madel A. Experimental values takenfrom [28J. Processing Conditions:
Melt Temp =210
0
e Cao/mg Temp =20
0
e PackingPress =30.5MPa
0.8
0.2 -e- At 2l25l (close to the gate)
-e- At 3110 L
-iJr- At the flowfront
ModelB
at 112 W
0.4
0.6
0.6
~
N
0.4
ModelA
at 112 W
0.2
-e- At 2125 L(close to the gate)
-e- At 3/10 L
-.et- At the flowfront
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dimensionless temperature
1.0
Figure 4.25: Temperature profiles duringfilling al 1 second
Run l ~ Polyethylene
0.6
~
N
0.4
Model B
at 112 W
0.2
-e- Gate (at 2125 L)
-e- Center (st 112 L)
-A- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.8
0.6
~
N
0.4
Model A
at 1/2W
0.2
-e- Center (at 112 L)
-&- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8
1.0
Figll1'e 4.26: Temperature profiles at the endoffil/ing
Run l, Polyethylene
0.6
Mode' B
st 1/2 W
0.2 ---&- Gate (at2J25 L)
-e- Center (at 1/2 L)
End (8123125 L)
0.4
0.8
0.6
J:
N
0.4
ModelA
at 112 W
0.2
-e- Gate (at 2125 l)
Center (at 112 l)
End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
i
1.0
0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.0
0.0
Figure 4.27: Temperature profiles at 10 seconds
Run I, Polyethylene
-&- Center (st 1/2 L)
-A- End (st 23/25 L)
Mode. B
at 1/2 W
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 -t-------"---lJ....a----J....----..I.....-------L.._
0.8
0.6
J:
il
0.4
ModelA
at 112 W
0.2
-e- Center (st 1/2 L)
--.t- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4
1.0
0.4 0.2
0.0 +---------T-------lI!!IBr-----.,.......EJiJ---_.......L.
0.0
Figure 4.28: Temperature profiles al 20 seconds
Run l, Polyethylene
1.0
0.2 0.1
Model B
at 112 W
0.2 -e- Gate (at 2125 L)
Center (st 1/2 L)
--.P- End (st 23125 L)
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.6
N
0.4
Mode. A
at 112 W
0.2
-e- Gate (st 2125 L)
-&- Center (at 112 L)
--6- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2
1.0 j
0.8
ligure 4.29: Temperature profiles at 30 seconds
Run 1, Polyethylene
!! 0
.a 1. 1
!
!.
E
S
1
c
. ~ 1.00
c:
CD
E
c
~ M o d e i A
--6- Model B
Al 0.63 sec.
!
1.01
~ M o d e i A
~
--6- Model B ..
!
CD
At 0.98 sec.
Q.
E
S
CI)
CI)
CD
'
0
1.00
US
c:
.;!
CD
E
0
!!
~ 1.01
!
~
E
S
:1
G)
c
~ 1.00
c:
Q)
E
C
-<r ModelA
---6- Madel B
At 1.48 sec
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dimensionless longitudinal distance
1.0
Figure 4.30: Evolution a/the temperature distribution in the cavity
duringfilling. Resu/ts al 1/2 Wandz =O. Run l, Polyethylene
82
1.010
1.005
1.000
!
~
..
l!
Q)
~
0.995
E
.!
fi)
fi)
Il
'
0
u;
c:
0.190
Q)
E
0
0.185
0.180
0.175
-0- ModelA
-t:r- Model B
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig",e 4.31: Temperature distribution in the cavity at lhe endoffilling.
Results at 112 Wandz =o. Run 1 ~ Polyethylene
83
Model B temperature distribution depicted in Figure 431 shows how the temperature
changes in the tlow direction (x). The pattern is different from Model A prediction in
which, the t e m ~ t u r e in the Oow front region is affected by fountain tlow. When the
melt reaches the end wall, the temperature decreases dramatically as it is expected to
happen in reality.
4.2 PolystyreDe
4.2.1 Pressure
Figures 4.32 to 4.35 show the pressure evolution for polystyrene in the cavity, near the
gate, and in the nozzIe obtained in the computational and experimental work. As in the
case ofpolyethylene, the pressure increases linearly during filling. However, the behavior
differs during packing. The two main differences between the PE and the PS packing
curves are: 0 solidification ofthe gate occurs (aster in PS and, according to PS curves,
the pressure reduces gradually after it reaches a maximum cavity packing pressure and
before the gate solidifies. ln genera4 Model A fits with more precision the experimental
behavior, however, it cannot predict the graduai pressure diminution before the gate
freezes. Also, Madel Bcurves exhibit a peak, similar to the PE simulation, just before the
gate freezes which, is not seen in the experimental curves.
Figures 4.35 and 4.36 show predided pressure distributions in the cavity along with the
history of the tlow front movement during tilling. As mentioned previously, Model A
gives more accurate predictions.
4.2.2 Residua. Stresses
Figures 4.38 to 4.41 illustrate the predieted and measud residual stresses obtained in
this WOlL The characteristic experimental bebavior shows tensile stresses on the surface
followed by a compressive region, and tensile stresses in the core. This bebavior bas
84
ModelA
40
.- 30
~
2
.......
~ 20
:7
en
en
!
Q. 10
o
-- Predicted cavity
- - Predicted nozzfe
a Experimental nozzfe
Model B
40
,....
30
ca
Q.
~
- Predieted cavity
.......
- - Predided nozzJe
! 20
~
en
a
Experimental nouJe
en
!!
Q.
1Q
o
o 5 la 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
TIme(s)
Fig""e 4.32: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in
the cavity and in the nozzle. Polystyrene, Run 1
ModelA
40
~ e " t , , & , _ Yt'C"".....,.. ,...
iF 88. 1"-1'\1"11'
! 20
~
en
ln
!
CL. 10
o
-- Predided gate
.- - Predicted nozzle
o Experimental gate
A Experimental nozzfe
Model B
40
o
'"
30
ft!
CL.
~
-- Predided gate
......
- - Predided nozzle
! 20
=
0 Experimental gate
fi)
Experimental nouJe ln
!
Q.
10
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (5)
Figwe 4.33: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in
the cavity andin the nozzle. Polystyrene, Run 2
ModelA
40
o
~
30
as
a.
:E
-- Predieted gate
"-'"
!! 20
:J
0 Experimental gate
en
!!
CL
10
Medel B
40
o
.-..
30
ca
0-
~
- Predieted gate
"-'"
- - Predicted nozzJe
! 20
~
0 Experimental gate
en
!
CL
10
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (5)
Figure 4.34: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in
the cavity and in the nozzle. Polystyrene, Run 4
40
! 20
:::J
en
en
!
CL 10
o
40
! 20
='
en
CI)
~
CL 10
o
ModelA
~ , . , ~
1 1 ~ 1 t m . . . . . . . .
1
1
Model B
-- Predicted gate
- - Predicted nozzie
o Experimental gate
6. Experimental nozzfe
- Predided gate
- - Predided nozzle
o Experimental gate
a Experimental nozzte
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (8)
Figll1'e 4.35: Experimental andpredictedpressure histories in
the cavity andin the nozzle. Polystyrene, Run 5
l ....
o.oMPa
Mi.

MPa
Mi.
Mu - 10.6
Mi .: 0.0 l'IP.
Mu
-----_.,
Figllte 4J6: Pressure contours andevolution ofthefree surface using Madel
At 0.239, 0.489, 0.73, and0.98s respectively, Run l, Polystyrene
89
Mu- 10.1
Mia- O.oMPa
Ma
Mu. - 12.8 MPa

0.0
Mm
Mu-I".s
Mi.- o.OMPa
Mu MI
Mu. =lU MPI

Mi. 0.0 MPI
Mu. Mi
Fig",e 4J7: Pressure contours andevolution ofthefree surface using Model B

At 0.50s, 0.75s, and 1.0 s, respectively. Run Polystyrene
90
20
15
........
10
as
Q.
5
:i
"-"
0
fi)
(ft
...5
!
..
CI)
...10
-15
...20
20
15
~
10
as
Q.
5
~
.....
0
(ft
fi)
5
~
..
en -10
4j
-15
..20
20
15
.-.
10
ta
~
5
:E
.....
0
fi)
en
-5
!
S ...10
-15
...20
Gate
-
...
~
...
..
-
~
9
0
o. 0.
<i
o ( ~
.0
o ~

0.0
.0
-
0-
- ~
1-
~
Center
~
1-
~
l-
n
o
o o
.( ~

.0
0
o ~
0 .0
0
...
...
...
~
End
1-
...
l-
I-
()
o.
o. o.
ce
o( ~
.0
o 0
0
0
1-
~
1-
~
20
15
10
5
o
5
-10
15
20
20
15
10
5
o
-5
10
...15
20
20
15
10
5
o
-5
...10
..15
-20
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIb
0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 4.38: Experimental andpredictedresiduaI stress
distribution using Madel A. Po/ystyrene, Run l
Filleddots: prediction; Empty dots: experimental
20
15
10
5
o
5
-10
-15
-20
20
15
10
5
a
5
..10
-15
-20
20
15
.......
10
as
0-
S
:E
~
0
ri)
ri)
..5
!
..
(/J
..10
-15
-20
20
15
..-..
10
as
0-
5
:E
~
0
en
en
-5
!
..
UJ -10
-15
-20
20
15
.......
10
as
C-
5
:i
~
0
ri)
en
5
2!
..
UJ ..10
-15
-20
Gate
...
...
D 0
o.
Ce
ce
~ ( ~

~
~ O
-
-
!""'
-
Center
..
...
c) o O.
ce
~
~
On
~
000
~
'-
~
'-
End
..
'-
() .o O.
(}
ce
<
ce

0
~ 00
0
...
T
20
15
10
5
o
5
-10
-15
...20
0.0 0.2 0.4
zJb
0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 4.39: ExperimentaI andpredictedresiduaI stress
distribution usingModel A.. Polystyrene, Run 2
Fi/leddots: Prediction; Empty dots: experimenta/
20
15
"'"" 10
ca
0-
5
~
'"-"
0
fi)
fi)
5
!
...
rn 10
-15
-20
20
15
..-.
10
ca
CL
5
~
'"-"
a
fi)
fi)
5
!
...
UJ 10
1
,t
15
-20
20
15
..-.
10
ca
CL
5
~
'"-"
0
fi)
(1)
-5
!
...
UJ -10
-15
-20
Gate
~
-
-
~ D i

ce .0

~ d ~
.0
.0
-
...
..
Center
!'""
JD i

.0

~ d l
0.
.0 .0
-
...
End
l-
i-
'D e

~
.0
0
o&l
0.
.0 o !'""
-
-
-
J
20
15
10
5
o
5
-10
-15
20
20
15
10
5
a
-5
10
-15
-20
20
15
10
5
a
-5
-10
...15
-20
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIb
0.6 0.8 1.0
distribution usingMadel A. Polystyrene, Run 4
Filleddots: Prediction; Empty dots: experimenta[
20
15
.-.
10
as
a.
5
:.i
.......
0
fi)
fi)
..5
!
...
UJ -10
-15
-20
20
15
.......
10
as
C-
5
~
.......
0
en
en
-5
!
..,
CIJ -10
-15
-20
20
15
.-..
10
ca
a.
5
:.i
.......
0
en
en
-5
!
ii -10
15
-20
Gate
~
D 0 0 0

~
~
o ( ~
.0.
0.0 0
..
~
~
Center
~
~
:) a 0
0
~
()

fP
o -
0
0
0
0
~
~
End
-
~
-
~
D
a
0.
i

0
.0
a
000
0
-
..
1
-T
20
15
10
5
o
-5
-10
-15
-20
20
15
10
5
o
-5
-10
-15
..20
20
15
10
5
o
-5
-10
-15
-20
0.0 0.2 0.4
zJb
0.6 0.8 1.0
Figlll'e 4.41: Experimental andpredictedresiduaI stress
distribution usingModel A. Polystyrene, Run 5
Filled dots: Prediction; Empty dots: experimental
been observed by other researchers [36, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Computational profiles show
good agreement with experimental resuIts, except that predicted results tend to
overestimate tensile surface stresses and the tensile region close ta the core exhibits a
maximum and then goes to the compressive stresses in the core.
Figure 4.42 shows the characteristic stress profile evolution obtained in the simulations.
At the end of fiIting (2.1 s) the stresses are zero since Model Astarts ta compute residual
stresses after the filling stage bas tinished. At 6 seconds, compressive stresses appear on
the swface. At 7 seconds, compressive stresses on the surface begin to decrease and,
eventually, they become tensile stresses followed by a compressive region. At 25
seconds, the characteristic profile is developed and then, the peak observed at z/H == 0.25
moves gradually to the tensile region.
Figures 4.43 to 4.45 show the influence of variaus processing conditions on the residual
stresses. The effect ofpacking pressure shows a similar influence that the one obtained in
the PE case: increasing the packing pressure causes stresses on the surface and in the core
to increase. Increasing the mold temperature induces higher tensile stresses on the surface
and higher compressive stresses in the core. The effect of melt temperature seem to have
less impact on the profile, except for the center region where, high melt temperature
causes less tensile stresses on the surface and less compressive stresses in the core.
4.2.3 Temperature
Figures 4.46 to 4.50 depict the evolution oftemperature distribution across the thickness
predieted by Model A and Model B. Temperature decreases much Caster close to the
walls in Model B calculatioDS. As discussed in section 4.1.4, this is because Model B
assumes perfeet contact on the swface, instead ofconsidering a heat transfer coefficient.
95
10
-10
5
~
as
a.
~
-e- 2.1 5 ........
a
fi)
ri)
! .-..- 65
..
CI'J
5
-'-75
~ - 9 s
-10
--.-115
-a-- 125
10
-8- 255
-- Final
5
~
ta
C.
~
........
0
fi)
fi)
!
..
CI'J
-5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zJH
FigllFe 4.42: Evolution ofresidual stresses close to the gate
using Madel A. Run 4 ~ Polystyrene
96
Gate
5 5
""'"'" as
CL
~
----- .-- ----
~
0
'1
fi) ~
a
fi)
l!
~
~
~
en
~ - - -
-5 -5
Center
5 5
""'"'"
as
a..
~
~
a a
tn
(1)
!
~
U)
.',
-5 -5
20
End
20
""'"'"
15 15
as
Q.
~ 10 10
"-'"
(1)
(1)
5 5
!
~
..".....----..
en
0 0
-5 -5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zIb
Figure 4.43: The ejfect ofpacldngpressure on the predicted
residual stresses usingModel A, Polystyrene.
SaUdline: Paclcingpressure =33 MPa (Run 1)
Dash line: Paclcingpressure = 26MPa (Run 4)
5
-5
15
,.....
ca
10
Q.
~
"'-"
5
fi)
fi)
!
0
..
CI)
..:,
-5
20
.-.. 15
ta
a.
~ 10
"'-"
fi)
fi) 5
!
..
CIJ 0
-5
Gate
1
.
,.., --:::-~ ::-- /1
~
/ ~ . " . ~ . ;
. " .-/.
./ '--........;
Center
~
/
-
.
/1
~
------------. ../
....--.-. ~ ~
~
------ . .. - ..,.""",
~
.
End
. ~
~
~
/J
~
-----_ /1
~
~
--- .- .--.- -===-...:..=.::.: -.:",/
~
1
5
o
-5
15
10
5
o
-5
20
15
10
5
a
-5
0.0 0.2 Q.4
lib
0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 4.44: The effect ofcao/ont temperature on the predicted
residual stresses usingModel A, Polystyrene.
Dash Une: Mo/d temperature = 140C (Run 2)
Dash-Dot line: Mold temperature = 410(' (Run 3)
Gate
5 5
..-..
ta
l
Q.
:E
/) "-"
a a
fi)
==--- --- --- ----
CI)
!
~
--
~
CIJ
-5 -5
15 Center 15
.-.
ta
10 10
Q.
:i
"-"
5 5
CI)
fi)
!!
0
--
a
CIJ
----
-5 -5
20
End
20
..-..
15 15
as
Q.
:i
10 10
"-"
fi)
en
5 5
!
--
C1J
a
---
0
----
-
-5 -5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
zIb
Figure 4.45: The ejJct ofmelt temperature on the predicted
residual stresses using Madel , Polystyrene.
SalidUne: Melt temperature =2630(' (Run 1)
Dash Une: Melt temperature =243C(Run 5)
0.8
0.2 ~ At 2125 L(close to the gate)
-&- At 215 L
-..e.- At the flawfront
Mode. B
at 112 W
0.4
0.6
0.6
J:
"N
0.4
ModelA
at 112 W
0.2
-e- At 2125 L(close ta the gale)
-e- At 215 L
--.r- At the ftow front
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0
Figure 4.46: Temperature profiles duringfilling at 0.7 seconds
Run l, Polystyrene
100
0.6
:J:
il
0.4
Model B
at 112 W
0.2
-e-- Gate (at 2125 L)
-e- Center (st 112 L)
......&- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.6
~
N
0.4
Madel A
at 1/2 W
0.2
-&- Gate (at 2125 L)
-&- Center (at 112 L)
-..- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
l
0.8
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dimensanless temperature
1.0
Fig"" 4.47: Temperature profiles at the endoffilling
Run l, Polystyrene
101
ModelB
at 112 W
0.4
0.2 -e- Gate (st 2125 L)
Center (at 112 L)
-6- End (st 23J25 L)
0.8
0.6
0.6
:t
N
0.4
ModelA
at 112 W
0.2
--e- Gate (at 2125 L)
-e- Center (at 1/2 L)
-.t- End (st 23125 L)
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
1.0 0.6 0.8
0.2
0.0 __
0.0
Figll1'e 4.48: Temperatureprofiles at 2.5 seconds
Run I, Polystyrene
102
1.0 ;--_----I .....--.r..__--'--__..L...-._..........__--L...__+
0.8
0.6
~
~
0.4
Mociei A
at 112W
0.2
--e- Center (st 112 L)
.......&- End (at 23125 L)
0.0
0.0 02 0.4 0.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Mode. B
st 112 W
~ Center{at 112 L)
-&- End (at 23125 L)
0.6 0.2 0.4
0.0 + - - - . . , ~ - - - - - r - - - --.,.....---.......-_B__-,...---+
0.0
Figure 4.49: Temperature profiles al 10 seconds
Run /, Polystyrene
103
0.2 Gate (at 2125 L)
-e- Center (at 112 L)
-6- End (at 23125 L)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Mode. B
at 112 W
0.5 U 0.2
0.0 -.....,......-_,__-+
0.0
Figure 4.50: Temperature profiles at 20 seconds
Run 1, Polystyrene
104
Figure 4.51 show the midplane temperature across the length of the cavity at the end of
filling. It is clearly seen that the incorporation ofthe fountain tlow and heat transfer in xy-
plane gives more stable and realistic results, especially, near to the end wall.
4.2.4 Effeet of viseoelasticity
As described in section 2.2, Model A incorporates the etTect of viscoelasticity when
calculating the tlow stresses. Viscoelasticity is evaluated by selecting a proper value of
the White-Metzner modulus (0). Low values of G imply more elasticity in the
computations, while high values of G imply more viscous behavior. No experimental
work was carried out ta obtain the G value. However, in arder to study the effeet of
viscoelasticity on the predictions, a number of simulations were performed selecting
arbitrary Gvalues. In the polyethylene simulations, values ofGless than 10
6
Pa produced
singularities when calculating the Cree surface through the gate area. In the polystyrene
computations, a G=1OS Pa was used but, insignificant influence on the results was
observed (see Figure 4.52).
lOS
1.004
1.002
!
;:,
...
m
..
8-
1.000
E
.!
CI)
CI)
.!!
c
0
0.110
i
'il c
G)
E
C
0.108
0.106
-0- ModelA
-b- ModelB
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figlll'e 4.51: Temperature distribution in the cavity at the endoffilling
Results at 112 Wandz =O. Run l, Polystyrene
106
Gate
5 5
......
as
CL
::E
'-"
0 0
ri'
rn
!
...
UJ
-5 -5
Center
5 5
,....
al
CL
::E
'-"
0 0
ri'
ln
!
...
UJ
-5 -5
...
1
10
End
10
,....
al
0-
5 5
::E
'-"
ln
rn
0
!
0
...
UJ
-5 -5
0.0 0.2 0.4
zIH
0.6 0.8 1.0
FiglUe 4.52: Predictedresidual stresses using Model A, Polystyrene.
Blue dash line: W-MViscoelastic Modulus (G) = 0.1 MPa
Red fine: W-MViscoelastic Modulus (G)= 10 MPa
ChapterS
CODclusion
Two mathematical models for the simulation of the injection molding process have been
tested usDg two different thermoplastics. Polyethylene was selected to represent
crystalline polymers, and Polystyrene was employed to represent the amorphous
polymers. Computational resuIts were validated by comparing them with experimental
data obtained under a set of various processing conditions. In general, Madel A gave
more accurate results. However, it should be noted that the computations were perfonned
in a rather simple geometry.
This study puts in evidence the importance of including fountain flow and heat transfer in
the :c- and y- directions. In faet, crystallinity development in injection molding could not
he evaluated by ignoring these two relevant aspects.
Since its creation, Model A bas been used with crystalline materials (HOPE). In the
present wade, the amorphous behavior in injection molding was successfully tested for
the first rime with this mathematical formulation.
Model A was used to analyze quantitatively the influence ofprocessing conditions on the
residual stresses in injection molding. It was round that the packing pressure affects
considerably the stress profile, whereas the mold and melt temperatures have less impact
These observations were validated comparing the predictions with measured residual
stresses employing the layer removal tethnique. Two characteristic residual stress
distributions were obtained for eachofthe two materials.
Unfruitful attempts were made in order to study the mie of viscoelasticity by using the
White-Metmer constitutive equation which, is incorporated in the mathematical
lOS
formulation of Model A. In the Polyethylene simulatioDS
9
values of the viscoeslastic
modulus (G) less tban 10
6
Pa produced singularities when calculating the free surface
through the gate area. In the case ofPolystyrene, a G= lOS Pa was used but, no influence
on the resuIts was observed. However, considering the melt as a Generalized Newtonian
Fluid gave accurate and stable solutions.
5.1 RecommeDdatioDs
In order ta investigate the influence ofthe processing conditions on the residual stresses,
processing conditions were varied over a wide range. Packing pressure was controlled
adjusting the opening of the supply serva valve (SSV) located at the injection cylinder.
The SSV range varied fram 30% to 90%, which gave packing pressures of28 MPa and
41 M P ~ respectively. Distortion of the mold Metal was found under the high-pressure
tests. Distortion of the mold is not desirable because it changes the volume of the cavity.
The models presented in this wode are not able to simulate this defonnation. Therefore, it
is not recommended ta operate the machine with SSVvalues more than 75%.
The layer removal method was used in this study. However, other experimental methods
to measure residual stresses, such as optical and ultrasound techniques, could help to
evaluate the accuracy ofthe experimental results. Recent developments in the processing
and interpretation of images make optical techniques an attractive way ta study the
evolution ofresidual stresses in injection molding.
The value of the heat transfer coefficient (h) was seleeted arbitrarily. This value was
chosen to minjmize the mor in the model A predictions. Efforts to determine the
experimental behavior ofhshould he carried out.
109
References
1. WeIl. S., Jen, C., and Nguyen, K.T., Intern. Polym. Process., XIV(2), 175 (1999)
2. Kabanemi, K.K., Vaillancourt, H., Wang, H., and Salloum, G., Polym. EDg. Sei.,
38,21 (1998)
3. Schmachtenberg, E., and Schoeche, N., Polym. EDI. SeL, 39, 767 (1999)
4. Rubin, Il., '1njection Molding Theory and Practice", John WiJey & Sons, New
York, (1972)
5.. Kama!, M.R., and Kenig, S., Polym. EDg. Sci., 12,295 (1972)
6. KamaI, M.R., and Kenig, S., Polym. EDg. SeL, 12,302 (1972)
7. Barrie, LT., SPE J., 27, 62 (1971)
8. Broyer, E., Gutfinger, C., and Tadmor, Z., TraDs. Soc. Rhea, 19,423 (1975)
9. Tadmor, Z., Broyer, E., and Gutenfinger, C., Polym. EDg. Sei., 14, 660 (1974)
10. Williams, G., and Lord, H..A., Polym. EDg. SeL, 15,553 (1975)
Il. Lord, H., and Williams, G., Polym. EDg. Sei., IS, 569 (1975)
12. Stevenson, J.f. et al., SPE Tech. Papers, 22,282 (1976)
13. Manzione, L.T., Computer AidedEngineeringfor Polymer Processing Series,
"Applications ofComputer Aided Engineering in Injection Molding", edited by
L.T. Manzione, Hanser Pub., Munich, (1987)
14. Gao, DM., Nguyen, K.T., Hetu, J..-F., Laroche, D., and Garcia-Rejon, A., Adv.
Penorm. Mat., S, 43 (1998)
15. Cowie, J.M.G., "Polymers: Chemistry and Physics ofModem Material", Blackie
Academie and Professional, second edition, Glasgow, OK, (1991)
16. KamaI, M.R., andAnsari, L, SPE ANTEe, 1, 613 (1995)
17. Hieber, CA., and S h ~ S..F., J. NOD-NewtoD. F1uid Mec"., 7, 1(1980)
18. Kennedy, P., ' ~ o w Analysis ofInjection Molds", Hanser Pub., NewYork, (1995)
110
19. B ~ R.B., Stewart, W.E., and Lightfoot, E . N ~ "Transport Phenomena", John
Wiley, NewYork, (1958)
20. Kama!, M.R., "Injection Molding ofThermoplastics: Mold Filling", in
Encyclopedia ofMaterifJJs Science andEngineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
(1986)
21. Kama!, M.R., Frydrychowicz, W.
t
and Ansari, 1., ACS Symposium Series No. 603,
82, San Diego, Califomia (1994)
22. Crochet, Ml., Davies, A.R., and Walters, K., "Numerical Simulation of non-
Newtonian Flow", Elsevier (1984)
23. Perera, M.G.N., and Walters, K., J. NOD-NewtOD. Flaid Mech., 2, 191 (1977)
24. Nakamura, K., Watanabe, T., and Katayama, K., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 16, 1077
(1972)
25. Van Doormaa1, J.P., and Raithby, GD., Num. Reat. Transf., 7, 147 (1984)
26. Farhoudi, Y., "Measurement and Computation ofTbermal Stresses in Injection
Molding ofAmorphous and Crystalline Polymers", PhD. Dissertation, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada, 1998
27. Pittman, J.F.T., "Finite Elements for Field Problems" in Fundamentals ofComputer
ModeIingfor Po/ymer Processing, edited by CL. Tucker m, p.241, Hauser Pub.,
New York, 1989
28. Osborne Reynolds, ' ~ O n the Theory ofLubrication and Its Application ta Mr.
Beauchamps Tower' s Experiments, Pbil. TnDs. Royal Society, 177, 157 (1886)
29. Kamal, MoR., and Ansari, L, "McKAM4 User's Manual", McGill University,
Montreal, Canada (1997)
30. Kamal, M.R., and Papathanasiou, T.D., Polym. EII_ Sei., 33,410 (1993)
31. Capt, L., "The Pressure-Volume-Temperature behavior and the Effect ofPressure
on Crystallization Kinetics ofPolyethylene Resins", M.Eng. Thesis, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada (1999)
32. Ziabicki, A., Colloid Polym. SeL, 152, 207 (1974)
33. Samara, M., Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (in preparation)
111
34. Latleur, P.G., "Computer Simulation ofthe Injection Molding ofViscoelastic
Crystalline Thermoplastics", Ph.D. Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada (1983)
3S. Douven, L., PhD. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The
Netherlands (1991)
36. Hastenberg, C.H.V., Wildervanck, P.C., and Leenen, AJ.H., Polym. Eng. Sci., 32,
506 (1992)
37. Treuting, R.G., and Read, W.T., J. AppL Pbysies, 22, 130 (1951)
38. Baaijens, F.P.r., Rheol. Acta, 25, 284 (1991)
39. Menges, O., Dierkes, A., Schmidt, L., and Winkel, E., SPE Tech. Papers, 26, 300
(1980)
40. Schennink, 0.01., Master's Thesis, Twente University ofTechnology (1990)
41. Wimberger-FriedI, R., PhD. Thesis, Technische Universiteit The
Netherlands (1991)
42. Ghoneim, H., and Hieber, C.A., Polym. Eng. Sci., 37,219 (1997)
112

Computational and Experimental Evaluation of Two Models For The Simulation of Thermoplastics Injection Molding

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Computational and Experimental Evaluation of Two Models For The Simulation of Thermoplastics Injection Molding

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INFORMATION TO USERS

1000 100 10 1 0.1

Mas - 19.3 M'.

Figure 4.10: Pressure contours andevolution olthefree surface usingMadel B

Mu. - 12.8 MPa

Mu. =lU MPI

Fig",e 4J7: Pressure contours andevolution ofthefree surface using Model B

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi