![Sample our Physical Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110819/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Physical-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
In this study the powder injection moulding process was simulated with commercial analysis packages, C-Mold, Moldflow and ProCAST. The simulated melt front advancement, temperatures and pressures were compared with the experimental measurements. The three codes correctly predict the positions of weldlines. C-Mold performs the fastest analysis with good predictions of the temperatures and pressures within the cavity, but it is limited to two-dimensional models. Predictions of the in cavity pressure made by Moldflow are less accurate than those calculated by ProCAST and C-Mold. Predictions of the temperatures made by Moldflow and ProCAST are comparable with each other and agree reasonably well with the experimental observations. However, ProCAST is superior in terms of the number of different output data and visualising capabilities. The disadvantage of ProCAST is that it does not permit simulating the filling and post-fill ingstages of the powder injection moulding process in one simulation run.