CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

Thin\Squeeze film leviation (Near field acoustic levitation)

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   January 16, 2017, 10:52
Default Thin\Squeeze film leviation (Near field acoustic levitation)
  #1
New Member
 
Ran
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 9
sniak is on a distinguished road
Hello all,
I am trying to simulate a simple squeeze film problem. Based on the theory described here:
On the slow dynamics of near-field acoustically
levitated objects under High excitation
frequencies


The problem is described using Reynold's Equation for a thin fluid film, similar to what is done in thin film barrings.
diagram.png

I am trying to start by simulating a very simplified problem as described in the attached diagram.
Right now i have a closed "piston" (100 microns height, 10 mm wide)
I am trying to input a sinusoidal velocity input (using a UDF i attached as well) on the bottom part named "plate". the rest are defined as walls.

I am getting the UDF to work (i think), but i don't get the results i want,
I am trying to use "ideal gas" and "Sutherland" model for viscosity.
using viscosity laminar (as assumed by Reynolds equation).

The UDF:
Quote:
#include "udf.h"

DEFINE_PROFILE(sinu_velocity_faster, thread, position)
{
face_t f;
real t = CURRENT_TIME;

begin_f_loop(f, thread)
{
F_PROFILE(f, thread, position) = 1.7593*sin(20000.0*2.0*3.14*t);
}
end_f_loop(f, thread)
}
piston_sinus_faster.c

As for the solution. it seems that if i choose a second order or first order transient solution either grows to large or to little.

Anyone here maybe has some experience with similar problems ?
Are there any tips as to what solver to use ? or other physical setup ?
Maybe instead of defining the sides as walls i need to define them as pressure outlets ?

Thank your for reading so far.

diagram.png

piston_sinus_faster.c
sniak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 16, 2017, 14:05
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,665
Rep Power: 65
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
It seems you have a working UDF but if you have trouble a simple transient PROFILE may suffice.

For pressure outlets and unsteady compressible simulations in general, you need to pay attention to the acoustic boundary conditions. A pressure outlet is acoustically reflecting. Look into the non-reflecting and wave transparent options, they are only available if you have selected a transient simulation, these options are hidden for steady simulations.

In regards to pressure outlet vs walls. Depending on how much of a cycle you plan to simulate, you may have trouble with the pressure outlet when there is reversed flow. Of course you need a pressure outlet to get the correct induced flow (the viscous part of the squeeze film). If you have all walls, you have mostly compressible effects since the flow is purely kinematic and no boundary layer develops. I would go with whatever works for now until you get comfortable.

As for models, just unsteady laminar + energy with full ideal gas law should be fine.
LuckyTran is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   January 17, 2017, 03:05
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Ran
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 9
sniak is on a distinguished road
Thank you for the answer !

Quote:
It seems you have a working UDF but if you have trouble a simple transient PROFILE may suffice.
Thanks, good to know i got it right.
Regarding the simple transient profile, i am not sure it will suffice, in order to capture the phenomena, i must have a sinusoidal profile, can i do that with a simple transient PROFILE ?

Quote:
For pressure outlets and unsteady compressible simulations in general, you need to pay attention to the acoustic boundary conditions. A pressure outlet is acoustically reflecting. Look into the non-reflecting and wave transparent options, they are only available if you have selected a transient simulation, these options are hidden for steady simulations.
I did try to put a non-reflecting boundary condition, but it still did'nt help my solution.

My question is,
If i want to simulate the system to be just two plates which are placed in regular room condition, with walls or anything reflecting far enough to be neglected, is putting pressure outlet the right thing ? walls will suffice in this case ?
or is there anything else that can simulate this ?

Thanks again for the support.
sniak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 17, 2017, 07:54
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,665
Rep Power: 65
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniak View Post
Thanks, good to know i got it right.
Regarding the simple transient profile, i am not sure it will suffice, in order to capture the phenomena, i must have a sinusoidal profile, can i do that with a simple transient PROFILE ?
With a PROFILE you can specify the value at different times and you just need to specify enough to get the sinusoidal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniak View Post
My question is,
If i want to simulate the system to be just two plates which are placed in regular room condition, with walls or anything reflecting far enough to be neglected, is putting pressure outlet the right thing ? walls will suffice in this case ?
or is there anything else that can simulate this ?
I'm not sure you would get a boundary layer to develop with walls. I doubt it. But have you seen it?

My point was that, both walls and pressure outlets (without non-reflecting boundaries) are acoustically reflecting. The wall is a hard reflection of all frequencies, and the pressure outlet is a type of low-pass filter.

Since acoustic waves is exactly what makes the compressible squeeze film different than a liquid squeeze film, I merely point that out. I don't know how large a magnitude it is, but it seems you've found no issue. But qualitatively... For those acoustic reflections to be negligible they would need to be "non-resonant" at a very different frequency than the driving frequency. It is unlikely the acoustic waves will be damped, because you would need many wavelengths in the lateral direction.
LuckyTran is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving mesh Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20
Acoustic levitation Ultrasound OpenFOAM 1 August 18, 2011 03:49
Acoustic field in a centrifugal fan mrshb4 OpenFOAM 2 December 10, 2010 05:19
Problem with rhoSimpleFoam matteo_gautero OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 February 28, 2008 06:51
acoustic field hesam FLUENT 1 July 20, 2003 04:29


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:27.