## 6 Evaluation of Simulation and Experimental Results  
In order to compare the simulation results with the results of the experiments, the time steps 0.26 s and 0.32 s of the filling process were selected as representative examples. The images of the mold parts from the respective experiments at the indicated points in time are presented in Figure 7. The setup for digitizing molded parts was used to transfer the experimental flow front data into a two-dimensional coordinate system. The data extraction software Digitizelt is employed to calculate the respective point data from digitized images and make it available for the specified two-dimensional coordinate system. This software is used to convert graphical information into digital information in the form of coordinate points [10; 59; 60]. Figure 6: Configuration for the digitization of molded parts. In order to accurately and quantitatively compare the rheological models, the coordinates of the points characterizing the flow front in the mid-plane of the volume are extracted from Ansys CFX. The parabolic shape of the flow front in the thickness direction allows for the effective utilization of the outermost region of the flow front in the mid-plane for analytical purposes. The digitized data points of the experiments and the simulation of the rheological models at the time points under consideration are presented in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8: Simulation and experimental results for the flow front at 0.26 s.  
Figure 7: Digitization of the molded parts at the time 0.26 s and 0.32 s.  
Figures 8 and 9 demonstrate that the majority of rheological models reproduce the flow behavior in a similar manner. However, the Second-Order model shows a significant deviation in the edge region from the other rheological models and the experimental results. While the models are quite close to the experiments in the middle range of the flow front at the time step of 0.26 s, they are slightly ahead at the time step of 0.32 s. Both time steps demonstrate that the models approximate the experiments quite good in the middle of the flow front, while they run slightly further ahead in the edge region of the flow front. It is evident that the real flow front of the experiments is not perfectly symmetrical. This discrepancy can be attributed to minor asymmetries in the temperature distribution of the mold, surface roughness, and manufacturing tolerances. It is also pertinent to note that the Carreau-WLF Winter model has a better approximation of the wall region compared to the other models. The Table 6 presents the results of the RMSE for various rheological models in comparison to the experimental data at two time steps. A lower RMSE value indicates a more accurate representation of the flow front. The Carreau-WLF Winter model shows the lowest RMSE values at both time steps, with values of 0.5751 at 0.26 s and 0.4192 at 0.32 s. This indicates that this model predicts the flow most accurately. The Carreau model also shows low RMSE values, 0.9563 at 0.26 s and 0.9763 at 0.32 s, providing reliable predictions. However, it is less accurate than the Carreau-WLF Winter model. The Power-Law model shows moderate performance, with RMSE values of 1.0978 at 0.26 s and 0.9258 at 0.32 s. While the model performs better than some existing models, it is not the most accurate solution. The Second-Order model shows the highest RMSE values, 2.0186 at 0.26 s and 1.8669 at 0.32 s, indicating the poorest model performance. This indicates that the model is less suitable for accurately predicting the flow. The Herschel-Bulkley model presents satisfactory performance, with RMSE values of 1.0606 at 0.26 s and 1.0125 at 0.32 s. However, it is not the most accurate model. The Cross and Cross-WLF models have moderate RMSE values. The Cross model shows values of 1.0948 at 0.26 s and 1.0122 at 0.32 s, while the Cross-WLF model performs better at 0.32 s (0.9018) but is not as good at 0.26 s (1.112).