Computational model to design circular runner conduit for plastic injection mould

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 02 Issue: 11 | Nov-2013, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 418
COMPUTATIONAL MODEL TO DESIGN CIRCULAR RUNNER
CONDUIT FOR PLASTIC INJECTION MOULD
Muralidhar Lakkanna*, Yashwanth Nagamallappa, R Nagaraja
PG & PD Studies, Government Tool room & Training Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
* Corresponding author Tel +91 8105899334, Email: lmurali_research@yahoo.com
Abstract
Analytical solution quest for viscoelastic shear thinning fluid flow through circular conduit is a matter of great prominence as it
directly evolvesmost efficient criteria to investigate various responses of independent parameters. Envisaging this facet present
endeavour attempts to develop a computational model for designing runner conduit lateral dimension in a plastic injection mould
through which thermoplastic melt gets injected. At outset injection phenomenon is represented by governing equations on the basis of
mass, momentum and energy conservation principles [1]. Embracing Hagen Poiseuille flow problem analogous to runner conduit
injection the manuscript uniquely imposes runner conduit inlet and outlet boundary conditions along with relative to appropriate
assumptions; governing equations evolve a computation model as criteria for designing. To overwhelm Non-Newtonian’s abstruse
Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch correction factor has been adopted byaccommodating thermoplastic melt behaviour towards the final
stage of derivation. The resulting final computational model is believed to express runner conduit dimensions as a function of
available type of injection moulding machine specifications, characteristics of thermoplastic melt and required features of component
being moulded. Later the equation so obtained has been verified by using dimensional analysis method.
Keywords: Computational modelling, Runner conduit design, Plastic injection mould, Hagen-Poiseuille flow
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
Mathematical models for polymer processingisby and large
deterministic (as are the processes)typically transport based
unsteady (cyclic process) and distributed parameter.
Particularly complex thermoplastic melt injection mould
system was broken into clearly defined subsystems for
modelling. Runner dimension plays a vital role in the
idealization of an injection mould and hence deriving a
computational model to determine runner dimension was of
immense need. There have been a fairly large number of
Newtonian apprehensions for which a closed form analytical
solution are prevailing. However, for non-Newtonian
apprehension fluids such as thermoplastic melts exact
solutions are rare. In general, non-Newtonian melt injection
behaviours are more complicated and subtle compared to
Newtonian fluid circumstances[2].Developing a model for
complex process like thermoplastic melt (which is non-
Newtonian highly viscoelastic, shinning type fluid) injection
through runner conduit (circular conduit) requires a clear
objective definition. Hereto the sole objective of this
derivation is to obtain a runner diameter design criteria as a
function of injection moulding machine specifications used for
the purpose of injection, type of thermoplastic melt being
injected and features of the component being moulded as
known parameters.
The physical process of thermoplastic melt injection through
runner conduit in a typical plastic injection mould is
represented by a set of expressions, which insights adept
acquaintance of in-situ physical phenomena that occurs within
actualprocessing[3]. Mathematical modelling involves
assembling sets of various mathematical equations, which
originates from engineering fundamentals, such as the
material, energy and momentum balance equations [4]. Herein
representative mathematical equations attempts to
computationally model the interrelations that govern actual
processing situate[5]. More complex the mathematical model,
the more accurately it mimics the actual process [6]. Towards
obtaining an analytical solution we must first simplify the
balance equations, although the resulting equations are
fundamental, rigorous,nonlinear, collective, complex and
difficult to solve [2]. Therefore, the resulting equations are
sufficiently simplified by considering appropriate assumptions
that correspond to those the actual processing interrelations
between variables and parameters. These assumptions are
geometric simplifications, initial conditions and physical
assumptions, such as isothermal systems, isotropic materials
as well as material models, such as Newtonian, elastic, visco-
elastic, shear thinning, or others [6]. Finally boundary
conditions like velocity and temperature profiles are applied to
simplifying the resulting equations completely [7]. Further
meticulous rearranging of the functions leads us to a complete
computational model that enables design engineers to

__________________________________________________________________________________________
confidently design superior moulds at bonus costs thus
idealizing the process from mould design perspective [8].
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The phenomenon ofactual melt injection through the runner
conduit is represented by governing equations that
discriminately appreciate compressibility, unsteadiness and
non-Newtonian factors. Hence are highly rigorous, nonlinear,
comprehensive, complex and difficult to solve. Few explicit
assumptions are made herein are:
(a) Thermoplastic viscosity remain consistent
(b)Body forces are neglected when compared to that of
viscous forces
(c) Thermoplastic melt thermal conductivity is considered
constant.
2.1 Equation of Continuity (Mass Balance)
 rr
( U )U ( U )U 1
0
t r r r
 
    
   

 
 
(1)
 . U 0
t

  


 (2)
Substituting  . U .U .U   
  
   , in equation (2),
.U .U 0
t

    

 
  (3)
d
.U 0
dt
  


 d log
.U 0
dt
 

 d log
.U
dt
  
 
(4)
2.2 Equations of Motion
2
r r r r
r
rrrr
U UU U U U
U U
t r r r
( )( )(r )P 1 1
r r r r r
    
    
    
 
      
    
 

 

 
 
 
(5)
r
r
2
r r r
2
U U U U U U U
U U
t r r r
( )(r ) ( )1 P 1 1
r r r rr
    
    
    
   
      
    
     

   

 
   
  
(6)
r
r
U U U UU
U U
t r r
(r ) ( ) ( )P 1 1
r r r
    
   
    
   
     
    
   

  

 
  
  
(7)
The Newtonian constitutive relations are
 r
rr
U 2
2 .U
r 3
 
     

  (8)
 rU U1 2
2 .U
r r 3
   
        

 

(9)
 
U 2
2 .U
3
 
    
 

 

(10)
r
r r
U U1
r
r r r
   
        

   

(11)
r
r r
U U
r
 
    
  

   

(12)
UU 1
r
 
    
  

   
 
(13)
 r
UU1 1
.U rU
r r r

   
  
 
 
(14)
Substituting Newtonian constitutive relation Eqn. (8) to (14) in
equations of motion Eqn. (5) to (7) we get,
2
r r r r
r
r r r
r r
U U U U U U
U U
t r r r
P U 2 2 U 1 U U
2 .U
r r r 3 r r r r
U1 1 U U U U
r r r r r
    
    
    
        
                   
        
                  

 


 

 



 
   
(15)

__________________________________________________________________________________________
r
r
r r
U U U U U U U
U U
t r r r
1 P 1 2 U U 2
2 .U
r r r r 3
2 1 U U U 1 U U U
r r r r r r r r
U1 U
r
    
    
    
     
           
         
                 
    
   
    

     

 
   
 

 

  


 

  
(16)
r
r
r
U U U UU
U U
t r r
U UP 2 U
2 .U
3 r r
U U1 1 U U
r r r r
    
   
    
        
          
        
           
         
           

   

 
 

 


   
 
   
(17)
2.3 Energy Balance Equation
   
ˆdu
P .U . k T : U
dt
      
  
  (18)
From thermodynamic relation we have,
v v
ˆdu
ˆC , du C dT
dT
  
Hence Eqn. (18) simplifies as
   v
dT
C P .U . k T : U
dt
       
  
(19)
 
 
v 2
222
r r
22
r
2
2
r
dT 1 T 1 T T
C P .U kr k k
dt r r r r
UUU U1
r r r
UU U UU1 1 1 1
2
2 r r r 2 r
UU1 1
.U
2 r 3

  


   
 

  

         
         
          
    
              
   
             
 
    
  


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(20)
Equation of Entropy
 
dS
T . k T : U
dt
    
 
  (21)
We can apprehend from Eqn. (19) and (21) that entropy is
already present quantitatively in energy equation Eqn. (19)
itself.
3. SOLUTION FOR GOVERNING EQUATIONS
Geometrical conditions
a) Analogous to pipe flow transverse velocity components
could be considered almost zero (geometrical constraint)
i.e., rU U 0  , accordingly transverse pressure
gradience would also be zero. Hence
P P
0
r
 
 
 
b) Since runner cross section is axis-symmetric profile,
tangential gradience could be considered zero i.e.,
0



c) Only lateral gradience of temperature is considered
because radial gradience far exceeds than other two
directionsi.e.,
T T T
0, 0
r 
  
  
  
Upon substituting above (a) to (c), governing equations reduce
to,
 
Ud
log
dt

 




(22)
U U U UP 4
U r
t 3 r r r
          
         
           
   

 

   
(23)
2 2
v
U U UT 1 T 4 3
C P kr
t r r r 3 4 r
  
 
 
         
        
            
(24)
Substituting Eqn. (22) in Eqn. (23) and Eqn. (24) we get
 
 
U d
U log
t dt
UP 4 d
log r
3 dt r r r
 
 
 
    
      
      



 
 

 
(25)
 
 
v
22
T d
C P log
t dt
U1 T 4 d 3
kr log
r r r 3 dt 4 r



      
         
        

 
 
(26)
3.1 Hagen-Poiscuille Velocity Profile
Thermoplastic melt transportation studies are critical
fordesigninglateral dimension of runner conduits as well as

__________________________________________________________________________________________
injectionbehaviours [9]. Cognising axial velocity of non-
Newtonian, shear thinning thermoplastic melt injection can
conversely enable conduit dimension determination, because
Axial velocity component is a function of conduit radius
through which melt is being injected [10]. Since thermoplastic
melt injection through circular runner conduit occurs at creep
level Reynolds number, the flow is fully developed and
laminar. Hence well-established incompressible laminar flow
Hagen-Poiscuille velocity profile can be considered analogous
to represent velocity for thermoplastic melt injection through
circular conduits. Parabolic velocity profile through circular
conduits varies from core to wall in such a way that core
velocity would be maximum while almost zero at the rigid
stationary wall. Accordingly velocity profile would be,
 2 21 P
U R r
4
 
 


 
(27)
Although Eqn. (27) neglects compressibility factor, herein we
retain it right from equation of continuity to appreciate actual
expandability and compressibility phenomenon through each
cycle typically involved in injection moulding. Substituting
Eqn. (27) in Eqn. (25) we get,
     
   
2 2 2 2
2 2
1 P 1 P d
R r R r log
t 4 4 dt
P 4 d 1 P
log r R r
3 dt r r r 4
        
      
      
        
       
        
 
   
 

   
   
 
 
2 2 2 2
R r R rP P d
log
4 t 4 dt
P 4 d P
log
3 dt
 

   


  
       
     
      
   
    
   
 
 
 
2 2
4 d
log
3 dt
R r
1 P d P
log
4 dt t
     
                        


 

  
 
 
2 2
4 d
log
3 dt
r R
1 P d P
log
4 dt t
     
                        


 

  
 
 
2 2
4 d
log
3 dt
r R
1 P d P
log
4 dt t
     
                       


 

  
(28)
Similarly substitute Eqn.(27) in Eqn.(26) we get,
 
   
v
22
2 2
T d 1 T
C P log kr
t dt r r r
4 d 3 1 P
log R r
3 dt 4 r 4
   
   
   
      
       
       
 
 
 
   
2
v
22
T d 1 T 4 d
C P log kr log
t dt r r r 3 dt
r P
4
     
     
     
 
  
 
   
 
   
2
v
2
2
4 d d 1 T T
log P log kr C
3 dt dt r r r t
r
1 P
4
            
        
  
    
   
 
(29)
Now consideringHagen-Poiscuille temperature profiles for
thermoplastic melt injection through circular conduit
 
2
max w maxT T U
4k
 

(30)
Eqn. 30featuresmaximum temperature at conduit core with an
almost constant streaming gradience, while in actual injection
consequent to concurrent cooling melt temperature reduces
non-linearly, despite cooling melt streams keep moving ahead.
Hence temperature profile is appropriately modified as,
 
2
wT T U
4k
 

(30a)
Where  2 21 P
U R r
4
 
 
 
wT = wall temperature
Substituting Eqn. (27) in Eqn. (30a) we get,
 
2
2 2
w
1 P
T R r T
4k 4
  
   
 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________
 
2
22 2
w2
1 P
T R r T
4k 16
  
       


 
2 22 2
w
R r P
T T
64 k
  
  
  
(31)
Now substituting Eqn. (31) in Eqn. (29), we get
 
 
 
 
2 22 22
w
2 22 2
v w
2
2
R r4 d 1 P
log kr T
3 dt r r r 64 k
R rd P
P log C T
dt t 64 k
r
1 P
4
                           
 
              
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
As wall temperature variation throughout the cycle is very
nominal, it can be considered to be almost constant. Thus
applying the condition, equation reduces to,
    
 
 
22
22 2
2 22 2
v
2
2
4 d 1 r P
log R r
3 dt r r 64 r
C R rd P
P log
dt 64 k t
r
1 P
4
                    
 
                 
 
  
 
 


 
 
    
 
 
22
2 2
2 22 2
v
2
2
4 d 1 r P
log 2 R r 2r
3 dt r r 64
C R rd P
P log
dt 64 k t
r
1 P
4
                   
 
                 
 
  
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
24 2 22
2 22 2
v
2
2
r R r4 d 1 P
log
3 dt r r 16
C R rd P
P log
dt 64 k t
r
1 P
4
 
 


 
 
                   
                 
 
  
 
 
 
 
23 22
2 22 2
v
2
2
4r 2R r4 d 1 P d
log P log
3 dt r 16 dt
C R r P
64 k t
r
1 P
4
             
 
    
          
 
  
  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2 22 2 2
v
22 2
2
2
C R r P 4 d
log
64 k t 3 dt
2r Rd P
P log
dt 8
r
1 P
4
                     
          
 
  

 
 

 
 
(32)
Thus equating Eqn. (28) and (32) we get,
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
2 22 2 2
v
22 2
2
4 d
log
3 dt
R
1 P d P
log
4 dt t
C R r P 4 d
log
64 k t 3 dt
2r Rd P
P log
dt 8
1 P
4
     
                       
                     
          
 
  


 

  

 
 

 
 

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Rearranging the above equation
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 22 2 2
v
22 2
2
2
C R r P 4 d
log
64 k t 3 dt
2r Rd P
P log
dt 8
1 PR
4
4 d
log
3 dt
1 P d P
log
4 dt t

 
 

 
 


 

  
                       
          
 
  
     
                      


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Substituting the condition at the boundary, that is at wall r=R,
the above equation simplifies into
   
 
 
 
222
2
2
r R
R4 d d P
log P log
3 dt dt 8
1 P
4
R
4 d
log
3 dt
1 P d P
log
4 dt t
  
 
 


 

  

                
  
   
      
       
                          
   
 
   
 
222
2
2
2
R4 d d P
log P log
3 dt dt 8
P d P 4 d P
log log
dt t 3 dt
R
1 P P d P
log
4 dt t
                  
            
         
              
                       




 
  
 

 
    

   
r R




Rearranging the above equation
 
   
   
 
22
3 2
2
3 22 2
R P P d P
log
4 dt t
4 P d 4 d P
log log
3 dt 3 dt t
P d d P
P log P log
dt dt t
R P d R P P
log
8 dt 8 t
        
     
        
      
      
       
    
    
     

       
     
       

   
 
 
 
 
 

    
 
2
4 d P
log
3 dt
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
            


  
 
 
   
 
22
3 22 2
3 2
2
R P P d P
log
4 dt t
R P d R P P
log
8 dt 8 t
4 P d 4 d P
log log
3 dt 3 dt t
P d
P log P
dt
         
      
         
 
          
                  
      
      
       
  
   
  

   

    
 
 
 


 
 
2
d P
log
dt t
4 d P
log
3 dt
 
 
 
 
   
    
 
    
        




  
 
 
   
 
3 2
2
3 2
3 2
1 P d 1 P P
log
4 dt 4 t
R
1 P d 1 P P
log
8 dt 8 t
4 P d 4 d P
log log
3 dt 3 dt t
P d
P log
dt
          
       
          
 
          
                  
      
      
       
  
   
  

    

    
 
 
 


 
 
2
2
d P
P log
dt t
4 d P
log
3 dt
 
 
 
 
        
 
    
        




  

__________________________________________________________________________________________
 
   
   
 
3 2
2
3 2
2
2
3 P d 3 P P
R log
8 dt 8 t
4 P d 4 d P
log log
3 dt 3 dt t
P d d P
P log P log
dt dt t
4 d P
log
3 dt
          
                  
       
      
       

               
   
   
   

    
 
 
 
 
 


  






 
 
  

   
   
 
 
3 2
2
2
2
2
4 P d 4 d P
log log
3 dt 3 dt t
P d d P
P log P log
dt dt t
4 d P
log
3 dt
R
3 P P d P
log
8 dt t
       
      
        
 
               
 
    
        
        
     
        
 
 
 
 
 


  

   
 
 
 
(33)
From Tait Equation we know that,
 
 
  
 
  
3 4 4 5 4
4
3 4 5 4
3 4 5
2
1 2 2 5 3 4 5
3
dT dP
b b exp b b b T
dT dt dt0.0894b 0.0894
dt b exp b b b T P
1 0.0894ln b 0.0894b b Tb dT
b b T b b dt0.0894ln b exp b T b Pd
log
dt 1 0.0894ln b 0.08
  
    
  
    
  
 
     
   
            
 

 
  
4 5
3 4 5
94b b T
0.0894ln b exp b T b P
 
 
       
(34)
3.2 Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch Correction
Since thermoplastic melt is non-Newtonian type, herein
inequality is implicit inabove Newtonian constitutive relations,
reasoning wallshear rate differencefor non-Newtonian
constitutive relations. Further to equate true non-newtonian
viscosity is obtained from Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch
correction [11]. Accordingly correct shear rate at the wall for a
non-Newtonian thermoplastic could now be calculated from
below equation,
a
R a
R
dln1
3
4 dln
  
   
   

 

 

(35)
The term in square brackets is the Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch
(WR) correction, by correcting apparent shear rate to true
shear rate, viscosity becomes obvious as it is the ratio of shear
stress at the wall to true shear rate at the wall of the capillary.
R
R





(36)
Accordingly viscosity for axisymmetric flow in terms of wall
shear stress and apparent shear rate is
1
R
a
3n 1
4n

 
  
 



(37)
Where n= power law index/shear thinning index R
a
dln
n
dln




For n=1 the true and apparent viscosity values are identical.
For shear-thinning (Pseudo- plastic) n<1, this means that for
aqueous thermoplastic melts, true shear rate would always be
greater than apparent shear rate [12]. Thus Eqn (37) would
now be,
0
4n
3n 1
 
  
 
  (38)
Where 0 = Apparent viscosity
Thus adopting Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch correction in
equation (33) the non-Newtonian behaviour of polymer melt is
accommodated.
4. MATHEMATICAL VALIDATION OF THE
RUNNER EQUATION USING DIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS
Dimension of all physical parameters being a unique
combination of basic constituting physicalquantification can
be expressed in terms of the fundamental dimensions (or base
dimensions) M, L, and T – also these form 3-dimensional
vector space.Itmandates strategic relevance to choice of data
and isadoptedherein to deduce the credibility of
derivedequations and thereon computations. Its most basic
benefit beinghomogeneity i.e., only commensurable equations
could be substantiated by havingidentical dimensions on either
sides. Accordingly dimensional analysis (also referred as Unit
Factor Method) is adapted to characterising Eqn. (33),
1 3 1
3
kg
M L T k
m
 
   

__________________________________________________________________________________________
1 1 2
2 2
N kg
P M L T
m m s
 
  

3 3
1 3 1 3 1
1 2
m m
b M L b M L
kg kg k
  
   

1 1 2
3 2 2
N kg
b M L T
m m s
 
  

1 1 1
4 5
1
b b k dt s T
k
 
     
  1 1 1 1 1
2
d N s kg
log T , m L and M L T
dt m sm
    
     

2 2 2
Consider L.H.S R m L 
2 2
3 2
2 2
2 2 2
2
2
3
Consider R.H.S
kg kg
kg 1 kg 1 1m s m s
m s m m s s ms s
kg kg
kg 1 kg 1 1m s m s
m s s mm s s m s
kgkg
1m s m s
kg m s m
m
kg
m s m s
kg
   
             
       
   
   
             
       
   
  
       
      
 
2
2
2 2 2 2
kg 1 kg 1
m s sm s m s
  
           
         
2 2 2 2
3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6
2
3 6
2
5 6
Upon simplifying
kg kg kg kg
m s m s m s m s
kg
m s
kg
m s
       
          
          
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
3 6
2 2
2
5 6
kg
m s m L
kg
m s
  

Since LHS = RHS, Runner equation has been verified
dimensionally.
CONCLUSIONS
This manuscript features a step by step derivation towards a
computational model for determining runner dimension of a
plastic injection mould. On the basis of governing equations,
Weissenberg-Rabinowitsch correction for non-Newtonian
nature of thermoplastic melt Eqn. (33) was derived as a
function of thermoplastic melt properties such as viscosity and
density, injection moulding machinespecificationssuch as
maximum injection pressure and nozzle tip temperature as
well as temporal parameter that feature the mould impression
in totality owing to processing dynamics. Ultimately we
believe Eqn. (33)computational model would offer a definite
value of runner dimension that might still diverge from perfect
or ideal design owing to computational rigour.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Lakkanna, Y. Nagamalappa and Nagaraja R (6 Nov
2013) "Implementation of Conservation principles for
Runner conduit in Plastic Injection Mould
Design"International Journal of Engineering Research
and Technology, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 88-99
[2] Z. Tadmor and C. G. Gogos (2006)Principles of
Polymer Processing, 2nd
ed., New Jersey: WILEY
[3] E. Mitsoulis(2010)“Computational Polymer
Processing”, Modelling and simulation in polymers, A.
I. Purushotham,D.Gujrati, Ed., Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany.
doi: 10.1002/9783527630257.ch4
[4] R. Patani, I. Coccorullo, V. Speranza and G.
Titomanlio(12 September 2005)“Modelling of
morphology evolution in the injection moulding process
of thermoplastic polymers”, Progress in Polymer
Science, pp. 1185-1222
[5] M. Lakkanna, R. Kadoli and Mohan Kumar G C
(2013)"Governing Equations to Inject Thermoplastic
Melt Through Runner conduit in a plastic injection
mould", Proceedings of National Conference on
Innovations in Mechanical Engineering, Madanapalle
[6] T AOsswald and J. P. Hernandez-Ortiz (2006), Polymer
processing modelling and simulation, Hanser
Publishers. Germany
[7] Mahmood, S. Parveen, A. Ara and N. Khan(15 January
2009) “Exact analytic solutions for the unsteady flow of
a non-Newtonian fluid between two cylinders with
fractional derivative model” Communications in
Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation pp. 3309-
3319
[8] L. l. Grange, G. Greyvenstein, W de Kock and J. Meyer
(1993), “A numerical model for solving polymer melt
flow”, R&D Journal, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 12-17
[9] S. Kumar and S. Kumar (8 March 2009)“A
Mathematical Model for Newtonian and Non-
Newtonian Flow” Indian Journal of Biomechanics, pp.
191-195

__________________________________________________________________________________________
[10] F. Pinho and J. Whitelaw (May 1990)“Flow of Non-
Newtonian fluids through pipe” Journal of Non-
Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, Vol 25, pp. 129-144
[11] P C Beaupre (2002)“A Comparison of the axisymmetric
& planar elongation viscosities of a polymer” , MSc
Mech. Engg. Thesis, Michigan Technological
University, USA
[12] N. Martins (2009), “Rheological investigation of iron
based feedstock for the metal injection moulding
process,” Dubendorf, Switzerland
BIOGRAPHIES
Muralidhar Lakkanna B.E(Mech)'96,
Post-Dipl-Tool Design'99, M.Mktg
Mngt'03, M.Tech(Tool Engg)'04, M.Phil
(ToolroomMngt)'05, PG-SQC'09 Since 16
years actively engaged in tool, die and
mould manufacturing has designed,
developed & commissioned more than
5000 high value tooling projects. Research
interests are high performance tools, dies & moulds, plastic
injection mould design, plastic injection mould mechanics,
computational plastic injection dynamics, etc., Currently
National Tool, Die & Mould Making Consultant, Regd at
Ministry of MSME, Government of India and Tool, Die &
Mould Technology Innovation & Management (TIMEIS)
Expert, Regd at Department of Science & Technology,
Government of India
lmurali_research@yahoo.com
Yashwanth Nagamallappa B.E (Mech)
’11 Presently studying M.Tech in Tool
Engineering at Government Toolroom&
Training Centre, Bangalore Possess
research interests in injection mould
design arena
yash.spy@gmail.com
R Nagaraja B.E (Mech)’88,M.Tech(Tool
Engg)’92 Since 21 years training at PG
level in tool design arena like plastic
moulds, advance moulding techniques,
press tools, component materials, die
casting, jigs & fixtures, etc. Currently in-
charge principal for PG&PD studies at
GT&TC, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore
r.nagaraja@yahoo.com
NOMENCLATURE:
m Mass Kg
V Volume 3
m
P Pressure 2
Kgf / m
T Temperature K
wT Wall Temperature K
K Thermal conductivity W/m
A Cross-section area 2
m
R Runner radius m
U

Linear velocity m / s
rU

Velocity in radial direction m / s
U


Velocity in tangential direction m / s
U


Velocity in arbitrary direction m / s
a Acceleration 2
m / s
M

Linear momentum Kg m / s
H

Angular momentum Kg m / s
I Moment of inertia 2
Kg m
e Specific total energy KJ / Kg
ˆu Specific internal energy KJ / Kg
T Resultant torque N m
M Resultant moment N m
F Resultant force 2
N / m
rF Force acting in radial direction 2
N / m
F
Force acting in tangential
direction
2
N / m
F
Force acting in arbitrary
direction
2
N / m
Q Rate of heat transfer KW
q Rate of heat transfer per unit
mass
KW
vW Rate of work done by viscous
forces
KW
pW Rate of work done by pressure
forces
KW
dS Entropy change KJ / Kg
vC Specific heat at constant
volume
KJ / KgK
pC Specific heat at constant
pressure
KJ / KgK
n

Unit normal vector
r

Position vector
n Shear thinning index

__________________________________________________________________________________________
GREEK SYMBOLS
 Density 3
Kg / m
 Specific volume 3
m / Kg

 Angular Velocity m / s
 Angular acceleration 2
m / s
R
 True shear rate 1/ s
a
 Apparent shear rate 1/ s
 Surface force 2
N / m
 Shear stress 2
N / m
 True Viscosity 2
N s / m
0 Apparent viscosity 2
N s / m
 Viscous dissipation function

Computational model to design circular runner conduit for plastic injection mould

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Computational model to design circular runner conduit for plastic injection mould (20)

More from eSAT Journals (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Computational model to design circular runner conduit for plastic injection mould