The customer considered the component design finished. The mould flow analysis did not.
An electronics business approached Dudley Associates with a low-volume enclosure and a preference for aluminium tooling. The product design was considered frozen, so the initial expectation was that the project could move directly into detailed DFM and tool manufacture.
An early feasibility study using Moldex3D showed that this would carry unnecessary risk.
Poor filling was only the first warning
The original feeding arrangement did not fill the part reliably in simulation. Process conditions and additional feed points could be studied until the cavity appeared full, but this did not create an acceptable solution. The predicted part still showed significant warpage.
This distinction matters. Filling a cavity is not the same as producing a dimensionally stable component. Increasing pressure or changing processing conditions can hide one symptom while leaving orientation, packing or shrinkage problems unresolved.
Testing alternatives before cutting aluminium
Our in-house Tool Designer ran several simulations to explore alternative feed positions and processing strategies. The objective was to improve the flow path while respecting the visible surfaces, insert features and functional geometry already built into the customer’s design.
“With every simulation, we learned a little more about the behaviour of the part. One change might improve filling but reveal another issue with packing or warpage. I have been designing mould tools for 25 years, and projects like this are a good reminder that there is always something new to solve. That is what keeps the job interesting.”
The most promising solution required a more fundamental change in approach. The component was flipped within the tool and fed from the underside. Existing insert-pin holes were then used to support the revised feed strategy.
The new orientation produced a more favourable simulation result, improving the predicted filling behaviour and reducing the warpage concern. It also avoided introducing an unnecessary gate witness onto a more sensitive surface.
What changed for the customer
The analysis created a practical route forward without requiring the customer to restart the complete product design. The DFM has now been approved, and the aluminium tool is progressing towards manufacture.
The wider lesson is that ‘design frozen’ should describe commercial readiness, not prevent manufacturing evidence from being considered. If simulation identifies a credible tooling or quality risk, resolving it before metal is cut protects both the project timing and the customer’s tooling investment.
Current position
T1 components are expected before the end of the year. Until those parts have been inspected, the simulation should be described as risk reduction rather than proof of final component performance.
Review manufacturing risk before tool manufacture
If your enclosure design is approaching release, Dudley Associates can complete an initial feasibility review before tool manufacture. Early flow and warpage evidence gives your engineering team time to act while changes are still controlled and comparatively inexpensive.
Frequently asked questions
What does mould flow analysis show?
Mould flow analysis can predict how polymer is likely to fill, pack and cool within a proposed tool. It can highlight risks such as hesitation, weld lines, air traps, pressure demand and warpage.
Does a successful simulation guarantee a good moulded part?
Can gate position affect warpage?
Yes. Gate position influences flow orientation, packing and shrinkage. These effects can change the direction and magnitude of dimensional movement.
Why analyse a low-volume aluminium tool?
Tool rework remains disruptive and expensive regardless of tool material. Early analysis can be particularly valuable where budgets and development windows leave little room for repeated tool corrections.
