CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM

shock absorber simulation

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   December 21, 2009, 09:04
Smile shock absorber simulation
  #1
dik
New Member
 
diki
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 6
dik is on a distinguished road
hi all, I have a problem about simulating a shock absorber fluid.

here's the model, a very simplified model as a preliminary design only to test the general flow characteristics. the real model will be more complicated but understanding the basic phenomena is a very important step.



i've tried setting the Boundary Condition of 2,3,4,5 faces (piston) as downward moving wall -0.2 m/s (minus sign for downward motion on Y-axis), while faces 1,6 and the cylinder wall set as a stationary wall BC. the results for this setting is qualitatively incorrect, indicated by the unreasonably lower velocity at the four orifices (3) where according to continuity it shuold be higher than any other points in the model.

second trial, i set the BC of 6 as inlet velocity of 0.2 m/s (upward on Y-axis). and i set 1 as a pressure opening (default value, about 1 atm). the cylinder wall was a moving wall which velocity is the same with the inlet velocity of 1 (0.2 m/s upward) and the remaining is a stationary real wall. the result was more make sense, at least qualitatively correct at the orifices where it gave more velocity than other points. but the problem is: face 1 and 6 is in fact a wall, not openings. setting 6 as an opening will result an eliminated rebound effect due to the collision between the fluid and the wall. just consider a shock absorber, there's no atmospheric opening.

so, what should I do to make this simulation realistic (not only just seems realistic, but also show the real phenomena indeed).

what should the Boundary Conditions of the faces?

can somebody help me with this problem? you can use the numbers in the picture above to designate the face in your explanations.

Thanks for viewing this thread. I will be glad and highly appreciate if you post some reply. well, once again, thanks folks.
dik is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 3, 2010, 22:05
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 6
MuratSuer is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by dik View Post
hi all, I have a problem about simulating a shock absorber fluid.

here's the model, a very simplified model as a preliminary design only to test the general flow characteristics. the real model will be more complicated but understanding the basic phenomena is a very important step.



i've tried setting the Boundary Condition of 2,3,4,5 faces (piston) as downward moving wall -0.2 m/s (minus sign for downward motion on Y-axis), while faces 1,6 and the cylinder wall set as a stationary wall BC. the results for this setting is qualitatively incorrect, indicated by the unreasonably lower velocity at the four orifices (3) where according to continuity it shuold be higher than any other points in the model.

second trial, i set the BC of 6 as inlet velocity of 0.2 m/s (upward on Y-axis). and i set 1 as a pressure opening (default value, about 1 atm). the cylinder wall was a moving wall which velocity is the same with the inlet velocity of 1 (0.2 m/s upward) and the remaining is a stationary real wall. the result was more make sense, at least qualitatively correct at the orifices where it gave more velocity than other points. but the problem is: face 1 and 6 is in fact a wall, not openings. setting 6 as an opening will result an eliminated rebound effect due to the collision between the fluid and the wall. just consider a shock absorber, there's no atmospheric opening.

so, what should I do to make this simulation realistic (not only just seems realistic, but also show the real phenomena indeed).

what should the Boundary Conditions of the faces?

can somebody help me with this problem? you can use the numbers in the picture above to designate the face in your explanations.

Thanks for viewing this thread. I will be glad and highly appreciate if you post some reply. well, once again, thanks folks.
FloEFD does not solve this problem as you explained it is very difficult to describe how to model it

Please contact Mentor Support
MuratSuer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2010, 23:52
Default
  #3
New Member
 
tammy beede
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
tam85 is on a distinguished road
simulating shock absorber requires trial and error procedure. you need a lot of tme and money to be able to do this. fidap is a best tool for the design of the shock absorber to be able to test the fluid interaction and to simulate what happens inside the shock absorber.
tam85 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 7, 2010, 09:36
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Alain FRYDMAN
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7
alainF is on a distinguished road
The problem you have for this simulation with flowsimulation/efd is that it doesn't take into account solid movement : If youput a velocity on a wall it treat it as a tangential velocity without deplacement.

So the pressure remain constant everywhere and the velocity remains equal to zero.

A way to handle this phenomena could be to make a simulation with a software which will be able to take into account wall movement thank to a mesh deformation algorithme. There is a lot of (fluent, cfx, adina, starCD,...) but the task can be quite complex.

Another way can be to have a simplified approach. Since the deplacement of the piston is at low velocity, you can approximate the pressure inside each chamber as adiabatique comprexion/dilatation. Then you will know the pressure delta between the two chamber, The flow rate can be calculated since the pressure drop in the holes which equal to pressure difference between the chamber.

You can make a numerical solving of these equation by a quite simple explicite temporal integration.

The only thing that you may need to determinate by 3D simulation would be the pressure drop through the hole versus the gas flowrate. of course you can do this with flowsimulation/efd
alainF is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shock tube simulation harish FLUENT 5 January 25, 2014 03:20
[ask] shock absorber simulation dik Main CFD Forum 1 December 17, 2009 02:32
Will compression waves overtake a moving shock? GRA Main CFD Forum 2 October 19, 2006 01:24
Urgent-CFD of Shock Absorber Shaji Main CFD Forum 3 July 22, 2004 16:41
1 dimensional shock simulation N Menon CFX 1 January 7, 2002 12:07


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:55.