## 6 Evaluation of Simulation and Experimental Results
The Bird-Carreau model shows moderate performance, RMSE values of 1.1020 at 0.26 s and 0.9963 at 0.32 s. The values of the RMSE show a high comparison with the visual results presented in Figures 8 and 9. It can be observed that the Second-Order model shows a significant deviation. However, the Carreau-WLF winter model represents the optimal approximation of the flow front. This can be attributed primarily to the more accurate representation of the edge region of the flow front. Figure 9: Simulation and experimental results for the flow front at 0.32 s.  
Figure 10 presents the temperature distribution of various rheological models at the specified time points of 0.26 s and 0.32 s in the mid-plane. It is evident that the rheological models show disparate temperature influence characteristics. While the Power-Law, Second-Order, and Cross-WLF models demonstrate a pronounced temperature fluctuation within the filling volume, the other rheological models shows a markedly more homogeneous temperature distribution. All rheological models demonstrate a higher temperature in the edge region and in the region of the sprue. Figure 11 presents the distribution of the shear rate for the various rheological models. It can be observed that the shear rate for the Power-Law, Second-Order, and Cross-WLF models is more significant and more homogeneously distributed than for the other rheological models. In contrast, the shear rate for the Herschel-Bulkley, Carreau, Carreau-WLF, Carreau Winter, Carreau-WLF Winter, Bird-Carreau, and Cross models is more inhomogeneously distributed. In the wall region of the flow front and near the sprue, these models have a higher shear rate in the middle region of the filling volume. Figure 12 presents the viscosity distributions of the rheological models. The characteristics of the viscosity distributions are different. The results demonstrate a clear correlation between shear rate and viscosity in all models. The Power-Law, Second-Order, Cross, and Cross-WLF models show a lower viscosity in the region close to the sprue and the middle region. In the wall region near the flow front, these rheological models show a lower viscosity. The Herschel-Bulkley and Bird-Carreau models show similar viscosity characteristics in the wall and near-sprue regions as the previous models. However, in the middle region of the filling volume, the Herschel-Bulkley model does show an average higher viscosity, with small low-viscosity spots, than the Bird-Carreau model. The Carreau, Carreau-WLF, Carreau Winter, and Carreau-WLF Winter models have a similar homogeneous viscosity in the middle region and the region close to the sprue. This viscosity is similarly low as in all other models. However, the wall region and that of the sprue are more clearly characterized by a low viscosity in the winter models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Rhelogical Model** & **RMSE at 0.26 s** & **RMSE at 0.32 s** \\ \hline Power-Law & 1.0978 & 0.9258 \\ \hline Second-Order & 2.0186 & 1.8669 \\ \hline Herschel-Bulkley & 1.0606 & 1.0125 \\ \hline Carreau & 0.9563 & 0.9763 \\ \hline Carreau-WLF & 0.9397 & 0.9915 \\ \hline Carreau Winter & 1.0261 & 0.9909 \\ \hline Carreau-WLF Winter & 0.5751 & 0.4192 \\ \hline Bird-Carreau & 1.1020 & 0.9963 \\ \hline Cross & 1.0948 & 1.0122 \\ \hline Cross-WLF & 1.1120 & 0.9018 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}