This document summarizes a mold flow study comparing a standard baffle design to a conformal cooling design using Polyshot's brazed core technology. The conformal cooling design resulted in lower part temperatures at the end of packing and cooling phases, lower mold temperatures at the end of cooling, lower coolant temperature rise, higher coolant pressure, and 25% lower total warpage. The improved cooling efficiency of the conformal cooling design reduced the required cooling time and overall cycle time by 39%.

1. 01/07/2013
0Project: STX-50-001-2012
Engineering with a Purpose

2. 1Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013
Prepared for:
Doug Hepler
Polyshot Corporation
West Henrietta, New York

3. 2Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Project Statement
The purpose of this mold flow study was to
evaluate the manufacturing performance
change in a single cavity simple Cap mold with
conformal cooling utilizing Polyshot’s brazed
core technology and one utilizing a standard
baffle design.
Both scenario’s inputs were identical with the
exception of the mold insert and cooling
configuration.

4. 3Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Finite Element Mesh – Tetra / Prismatic Mixed
622,301 Part elements
1,074,897 Cooling elements
2,949,503 Mold elements

5. 4Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Material Properties (PP – Sabic 575P)
Units = English

6. 5Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Processing Conditions
Units = English
80% of EOF
Pressure
70% of machine
capacity of 20 ksi

7. 6Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Filling Pattern @ EOP
Animated Animation will play when shown as a slide show.

8. 7Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Part Temperature at End of Packing Phase
36% lower

9. 8Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Part Temperature at End of Cooling Phase
38% lower
Denotes a faster cycle

10. 9Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Mold Temperature at End of Cooling Phase (Cross Section View)
Showing much cooler mold
inserts when results are
scaled to identical values
Temperature difference
resulted in a 39%
reduction in cycle time.
Req’d Cooling Time
3.1 sec
Req’d Cooling Time
1.9 sec

11. 10Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Mold Temperature at End of Cooling Phase – Detail View
Showing much cooler mold
inserts when results are
scaled to identical values
Temperature difference
resulted in a 39%
reduction in cycle time.
Req’d Cooling Time
3.1 sec
Req’d Cooling Time
1.9 sec

12. 11Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Coolant Temperature at End of Cooling Phase
99% lower
temperature rise in
coolant during the
cooling phase.
Greater cooling
efficiency.

13. 12Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Coolant Pressure at End of Cooling Phase
98% higher
coolant pressure
during the cooling
phase. Greater
cooling efficiency.

14. 13Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Total Displacement (Warpage) after Ejection at Room Temp
25% lower
total warpage
(all effects included)

15. 14Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Total Displacement (Warpage) after Ejection at Room Temp
25% lower
total warpage
(all effects included)

16. 15Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Total Displacement (Warpage) after Ejection at Room Temp
25% lower
total warpage
(all effects included)

17. 16Project: STX-50-001-2012
01/07/2013Contact Information
Robert A. Hickman
President
Shadow Polymer Industries, Inc.
Houston, Texas
(281) 789-7520 office
(330) 224-5640 cell
Rob@shadowpolymer.com
For more information, visit us
online at:
www.shadowpolymer.com