amesim-fluent

© All Rights Reserved

5 views

amesim-fluent

© All Rights Reserved

- Use of PyroSim for Simulation of Cinema Fire
- Implemenration of an Eulerian Multi Phase Model in OpenFOAM and Its Application to Polydisperse Two Phase Flows
- Simulation of Flow Through a Pump Sump and Its Validation
- EAEC 2011 Presentation - Ruben Jacob D
- Project CFD Guide
- 24 Ratnayake Melaaen Datta
- MS Thesis Topics
- Computational Fluid Dynamics ME880 01.pdf
- Aplications Hidroelasticity
- Numerical Analysis of Ship Motion
- NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICLE STRAIN AND BREAKAGE IN TURBULENT DISPERSIONS
- SPE 2077494
- 1--Conservation Laws of Fluid Motion and Boundary Conditions
- Final Report Format 20142
- A Computational Fluid Dynamics Approach for Optimization of a Sensor Network
- IACM_ECCOMAS(2014)
- IC+9162+COMPUTATIONAL+FLUID+DYNAMICS
- Chapter-3_Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in a Mixing Elbow_20160419
- Course Matching Template (for Ms Chong).Xls
- 845302

You are on page 1of 14

2009-01-2680

in Motorcycle Forks

S. Falfari, F. Brusiani and P. Pelloni

University of Bologna

fluid-mechanic systems that can get benefit from

Fork system is a primary component for motorcycles simulation design tools. In fact, the motorcycle forks are

because it assures the contact between tires and road, made by several components usually arranged inside a

therefore the safety and the driving feeling. Usually fork very narrow space. It implies the impossibility to place

optimization and tuning are experimentally made sensors inside the fork system to correctly understand

involving the generation of a high large number of its fluid dynamic behavior.

prototypes and an expensive experimental campaign. To The state of the art of motorcycle forks modeling is

reduce the design and the tuning phases of a generic relatively undeveloped. Liberati et al. [1] presented a

damper system, the numerical simulation should be paper describing the development of a grey-box

considered. modeling of a racing motorcycle single tube shock

In this paper, a one-dimensional (1D) model of fore- absorber. Martins et al. [2] developed a CFD shock

carriage forks for road applications is presented. The absorber model. They focused their attention on the fluid

model was built-up in AMESim code. In particular, the dynamic analysis of the fluid flow through the clearance

authors attention was focused on the detection and between shock absorber piston and tube. Choon-Tae

analysis of cavitation phenomenon inside the fork. As Lee et al. [3] proposed a new mathematical model for

well known, the cavitation is a complex three- simulating displacement-sensitive shock absorber. The

dimensional (3D) phenomenon that implies the phase vehicle dynamic characteristics of the model were

transition. Cavitation development and prediction are evaluated in time and in frequency domains using a

beyond 1D model capabilities, therefore the 1D fork quarter car-simulation model. Falfari et al. [4] presented

model was improved by 3D Computational Fluid a 1D model of fore-carriage fork by using AMESim code.

Dynamic (CFD) multiphase simulations performed by Numerical results were compared with experimental

using Fluent v12 (beta version). 3D numerical results tests underlying the good agreement with test data and

were integrated into the 1D model to define a new the prediction capability of the proposed 1D model about

numerical test methodology able to reproduce the the fork performance.

overall fork behaviour. In the present paper, the 1D model approach defined in

All 1D numerical results were compared to experimental [4] is adopted to study the fluid dynamic behavior of a

damping force traces obtained for different fork rod axial new fork prototype designed by PAIOLI MECCANICA.

velocities. The fork here analyzed presented the overall geometry

previously presented in [4] but now it showed to be

INTRODUCTION critical from the cavitation point of view.

Cavitation phenomenon involves the simultaneous

Nowadays, virtual tests are mandatory to reduce the presence of liquid and vapour. In a fork, cavitation

time to market of new products. Simulation tools are implies decay of oil performances in terms of damping

helpful to understand the behavior of single components effect, resulting in a significant change of the damping

and their interaction. force evolution during the ride (fast change of vehicle

stability). Cavitation depends strongly not only on

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

actual operating conditions.

Generally, the cavitation onset and development

prediction is beyond 1D model capabilities because of its

3D evolution. The major drawback of 1D modelling is

that the critical cavitation number (Kcrit), at which the

transition from a single-phase flow to a two phase flow

happens, must be set a priori. To overcome this

problem, the 1D fork model set-up was integrated by the

data obtained performing 3D CFD simulations of the fork

by using Fluent v12 (beta version). In particular, the 3D

simulations were useful to determine the value of the

critical cavitation number depending on the actual

geometry and operating conditions inside the fork and to

define the evolution trend of the nozzle discharge

coefficient (Cd) under cavitating conditions.

PAPER OUTLINE

part, brief descriptions of the damping rod fork system

and 1D fork model are provided.

In the second part,1D simulation results are presented

and compared to experimental results.

In the third part, 3D simulation set-up and cavitation

model are presented. Figure 1: Schematic representation of the considered

In the fourth part, 3D simulation results are presented fork assembly and detail of the fork valve group.

and discussed.

In the last part, the integration between 3D simulation In a typical damping rod fork (as the considered system)

and 1D model is presented and 1D results are newly the damping action is guaranteed by the combined

compared to experimental ones. action of elastic and hydraulic elements:

In the present paper all the data are dimensionless

because of PAIOLI MECCANICA discretion needs. y Elastic elements (springs) are responsible to

maintain the target fork height with respect to the

road;

DESCRIPION OF THE DAMPING-ROD FORK y Hydraulic elements (oil flow through calibrated

SYSTEM orifices) are responsible to control the fork axial

velocity, damping the oscillations induced by the

In the present paper, a prototype fore-carriage fork springs;

designed by PAIOLI MECCANICA for motorcycle

For a complete description of the fork behavior during

application was considered. Figure 1 shows the overall

compression and rebound strokes the authors referred

fork geometry. The fork layout here considered was the

to [4].

same as in [4] but it was designed to equip motorcycles

having different performance. In particular, the fork

assembly here considered guaranteed a damping action DESCRIPTION OF THE FORK 1D MODEL

higher than the fork presented in [4].

The 1D fork model was built up using AMESim platform.

AMESim code is suitable to perform one-dimensional

(1D) lump simulation of hydraulic and pneumatic

systems [5]. Figure 2 shows a sketch of the AMESim

fork model.

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

its length. P is the dynamic viscosity.

The mass flow rate in rectilinear cylindrical shape

orifices was calculated distinguishing two cases:

y Non cavitating orifice;

y Cavitating orifice;

NON CAVITATING ORIFICE

classic approach:

m& A Cd 2 U ( p1 p2 ) (5)

where:

Figure 2: Fork model sketch built into AMESim code. p1 is the hole upstream pressure;

p2 is the hole downstream pressure;

The overall 1D fork model was subdivided into three A is geometrical hole area;

different sub-models: mechanical, hydraulic, and U is the local fluid density;

pneumatic. Cd is the hole discharge coefficient;

Temperature dependency and friction forces were

In particular, Cd is calculated as:

neglected as in [1-4].

Re Re

MECHANICAL SUBMODEL Cd (6)

O dh

2 U ( p1 p2 )

The mechanical damping-rod fork was modeled as a v

mass-spring-damper assembly applying the dynamic

second law: where:

Re is the Reynolds number

mx&& cx& k ' x F (1) O is the flow number;

dh is the hole hydraulic diameter;

where m is the mass of each component, c the viscous

damping coefficient, k the elastic constant, and F is the

net force applied to the mass along the fork axis CAVITATING ORIFICE

direction due to spring, friction, and pressure acting on

fork internal surfaces. For evaluating the orifice discharge coefficient the

following expression is used:

HYDRAULIC SUBMODEL

p1 p v (7)

A lump model was adopted to reproduce the flow Cd CC CC K

p1 p 2

behavior of elements as: chambers having variable or

constant volumes, calibrated orifices (turbulent flow), where:

and clearances characterized by laminar leakage. The pv is the vapor pressure at the local fluid temperature;

basic equation of the hydraulic lump model was the K is the cavitation number;

mass conservation equation that for a generic capacity

can be written as: Cc is the hole contraction coefficient evaluated by the

empirical expression:

V dp dV

B dt

dt Q i (2)

1

2

r

0.5

(8)

i CC 11.4

CC 0 d

where V is the volume of each chamber, B is the bulk

modulus, Qi is the inlet or outlet volumetric flow rate, and (Cco = 0.61 as proposed by Nurick [6] and r/d is the ratio

dV/dt is the pumping effect defined as: between hole inlet radium and hole diameter).

dV Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (5) the mass flow rate of the

Av (3) cavitating orifice can be expressed as:

dt

is its velocity.

The fluid leakage flow rate through annular section was Eq. (9) states that the mass flow rate of a cavitating

defined as: nozzle is independent from the downstream pressure p2.

In particular, AMESim uses the cavitation number K to

b h3 distinguish if a hole is cavitating or not:

Q 'p (4)

12 P l

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

K' (10)

p1 pv K velocities, was not taken into account. Increasing

the foam formation a decay in the damping effect

And so: was expected because of the oil viscosity reduction;

' 1 y Simulations were isothermal;

K crit (11) y The fork valve lift was supposed to increase linearly

K crit

with the rod movement, while oscillations around its

When K is higher than a critical value (Kcrit) the flow equilibrium position could be expected;

through the nozzle is cavitating and the AMESim y The model could not account for manufacturing and

cavitation model is activated. The main problem of this assembling tolerances. As a consequence it

approach is to set a priori the Kcrit value. For example, reproduced the theoretical fork;

as stated by Schmidt [7], the critical cavitation number

Kcrit for a typical Diesel nozzle under steady fluid The overall set-up of the 1D fork model was made on

dynamic conditions could range from 2 to 1.45 the basis of authors previous work [4].

depending on parameters like percentage of non-

condensable gases dissolved in the main liquid phase, 1D FORK SIMULATION: NUMERICAL RESULTS

surface roughness, rounding radius of the hole inlet

edge, etc. The authors worked for many years about First of all, the fork fluid dynamic behavior was analyzed

cavitation analysis into injectors for automotive by the proposed 1D model. To validate the 1D model,

applications [8,9] identifying the Kcrit for these numerical results were compared to experimental ones

applications. However, only a small part of this in terms of fork hydraulic characteristic (damping force

experience can be applied to the fork analysis because vs piston rod displacement).

geometry and operating conditions are completely Fork hydraulic characteristic was experimentally

different. determined by PAIOLI MECCANICA using a MTS Shock

PNEUMATIC SUBMODEL Absorber Test System to acquire force, displacement,

and velocity of the tested fork. Figure 3 shows a single

The fork is always filled of oil except for the upper part of fork vertically positioned on the MTS tester.

the inner cylinder that is filled of air at the ambient Fork tests were performed moving up the piston till the

pressure pi (Figure 1). During the fork oscillations, the air operating point (its half stroke) and then exciting the fork

pressure changes according to the fork movement by different axial velocities with a sinusoidal

because the fork is sealed. The air pressure decreases displacement of 25 mm centred on the operating point.

during the fork extension and increases during the fork The same test methodology was used to perform 1D

compression. To find the right value of the air pressure numerical simulations.

at the operating starting point pf (typically half stroke), an Table 1 summarizes all the experimental configurations

isentropic compression was supposed: tested and reproduced by AMESim fork model.

pi Vik p f V fk (11)

and Vf are respectively the initial and final air chamber

volumes.

The initial volume Vi of the air pressure was evaluated

as:

Vi VTOT VOIL (12)

extension, and VOIL is the oil volume filling the fork

volume.

The expression for the final volume Vf is:

Vf Vi 'Vstroke (13)

the effective stroke of the fork itself.

LIMIT OF THE 1D FORK MODEL

The main limits of the fork 1D model previously Figure 3: MTS Shock Absorber Test System adopted by

described were: PAIOLI MECCANICA to obtain the fork dynamic

y Oil viscosity was kept constant during the characteristics.

simulation. It involved that the foam onset inside the

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

Case ID Axial velocity [mm/s] possible to identify cavitating conditions (K > 0.5) for all

CASE 1 300 the compression holes during the rebound phase.

CASE 2 500 Figure 10 shows the K cyclic evolutions recorded during

the fork 1D simulations. As could be noted, passing from

CASE 3 600

300 to 600 mm/s the K value became higher than 0.5

CASE 4 700 during the rebound phase meaning that cavitation

CASE 5 800 structures were detected by AMESim code.

It is important to underline that the information about

CASE 6 900

cavitation obtained by AMESim code could be used only

CASE 7 1000 to extract generic fluid dynamic considerations because

CASE 8 1500 of the a priori definition of the Kcrit value.

On the basis of the previous considerations it was clear

Table 1: Experimental configurations reproduced by the that 1D numerical set-up had to be improved in terms of:

1D model.

y Critical cavitation number Kcrit;

As previously underlined, the cavitation model was y Compression holes discharge coefficient (Cd). This

activated for all the 1D fork simulations. It implies that a parameter significantly changes from cavitating to

Kcrit value had to be defined. In first instance a value of non-cavitating condition, therefore a specific Cd

0.5 was chosen for the Kcrit parameter. This value has profile has to be adopted when cavitation occurs;

to be considered as a first attempt value valid for holes

on thin and flat plane. To fill these gaps two possible ways could be used:

Figures from 4 to 9 show the comparison between y Experimental approach;

experimental and simulation results. Only some y Numerical approach by performing 3D CFD

experimental configurations between them reported in multiphase simulations of the fork.

Table 1 were reported for seek of brevity: they were

believed to be the most representative. Due to the impossibility to perform a detailed

These Figures depicted the asymmetric damping force experimental fork fluid dynamic analysis, the second

piston rod displacement trend of motorcycle forks: the approach was chosen.

maximum damping force during compression stroke is

less than the maximum damping force in the rebound

1

stroke. This asymmetry is due to the design of this

EXP

particular fork but this kind of trend is not a general rule SIM COMPRESSION STROKE

Dimensionless damping force [-]

forks behaviour. Usually it is to consider that during the 0.5

rebound stroke the damping force must be greater than

during the compression stroke because the inner

hydraulic system has to brake the main spring force 0

(Figure 1), which is released during the rebound stroke

after a previous compression. On the other side during

the compression stroke the main work is made by the -0.5 REBOUND STROKE

main spring, while the hydraulic damping acts only after

a speed sinking stroke. In order to have more comfort on

particular roads, sometimes the main spring stiffness -1

has a low value, of consequence the global damping -20 -10 0 10 20

force piston rod displacement trend is symmetric. Piston rod displacement [mm]

Figure 5 (fork axial velocity equal to 500 mm/s) shows a

good agreement between experimental and simulation Figure 4: Experimental and simulated dimensionless

results during both compression and rebound strokes. damping force trace versus piston rod displacement

This result could be expected because the 1D model CASE 3: 300 mm/s.

set-up here adopted was derived from an authors

previous work performed on a similar fork geometry [4].

However, differently from the case presented in [4], now

increasing the fork axial velocity a disagreement

between experimental and simulation results was

detected. In particular, Figures 6-9 show that increasing

the fork axial velocity, the numerical underestimation of

the maximum rebound damping force progressively

increases becoming significant when the fork axial

velocity exceeds the 1000 mm/s (Figure 8).

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

2 4

EXP EXP

SIM 2 SIM

Dimensionless damping force [-]

1

0

0 -2

-4

-1

-6

-2

-8

-3 -10

Figure 5: Experimental and simulated dimensionless Figure 8: Experimental and simulated dimensionless

damping force trace versus piston rod displacement damping force trace versus piston rod displacement

CASE 5: 500 mm/s. CASE 10: 1000 mm/s.

2

EXP 8

SIM

Dimensionless damping force [-]

1 EXP

4 SIM

Dimensionless damping force [-]

0 0

-4

-1

-8

-2

-12

-3 -16

-4 -20

-20 -10 0 10 20

-24

Piston rod displacement [mm]

-20 -10 0 10 20

Piston rod displacement [mm]

Figure 6: Experimental and simulated dimensionless

damping force trace versus piston rod displacement Figure 9: Experimental and simulated dimensionless

CASE 6: 600 mm/s. damping force trace versus piston rod displacement

CASE 11: 1500 mm/s.

2

EXP

1 SIM 5

Dimensionless damping force [-]

0 300 mm/s

600 mm/s

-1 4

Cavitation number K' [-]

-2

3

-3

-4 2

-5

1

-6

-20 -10 0 10 20

Piston rod displacement [mm] 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 7: Experimental and simulated dimensionless Time [s]

damping force trace versus piston rod displacement Figure 10: K evolutions detected for a generic

CASE 7: 700 mm/s. compression holes passing from 300 to 600 mm/s.

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

obtained by the 1D fork simulation previously presented.

The previously considerations extrapolated by the 1D The pressure profiles were dimensionless with respect

fork simulations suggested a deep analysis of the fluid to the correspondent maximum pressure values.

dynamic conditions across the four compression holes

because of the detected cavitating flow conditions. From 4

the hole discharge coefficient point of view, cavitating Pinlet

3.5

flow is of primary importance because it determines Poutlet

mass flow choked condition. 3

To improve the prediction capabilities of the 1D fork

2.5

model, 3D CFD multiphase simulations were performed.

2

CONDITIONS

1

The main goal of the 3D CFD simulations was the 0.5

evaluation of the dynamic evolution of the fork

compression hole discharge coefficients as a function of 0

the fork axial velocity. For this reason, only the 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

computational domain reported in Figure 11 was Time [s]

considered to perform the 3D analysis. A 3D CFD run of

the whole fork is not feasible because of too high Figure 12: Pressure profiles applied on the inlet/outlet

computational effort, while a single 1D run takes about 2 system sections for a fork axial velocity equal to 600

minutes, a 3D CFD run of the domain of Figure 11 takes mm/s.

less than 3 hours.

MESH GENERATION

To perform the CFD simulations, a fully unstructured

hexahedral mesh was generated by using ICEMcfd

mesh generator. The total number of cells was near

200000. Figure 13 shows the cell distributions inside the

considered volume portion.

CFD multiphase analysis.

each compression hole was reproduced by the Figure 13: Unstructured hexahedral mesh adopted for

application of the 1D pressure profiles previously the considered fork volume portion.

recorded on the inlet/outlet system sections (Figure 11).

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

MODEL (14)

Dt 3 Ul

To perform a multiphase CFD simulation, it is necessary

to adopt numerical model able to simultaneously The basic assumptions that ZGB adopted to develop a

manage different fluid phases and their interactions. The source term form for the total interphase mass transfer

mixture model is a multipurpose multiphase model that rate per unit volume (R) were:

can model n phases by solving the momentum,

y Bubble growth and collapse follows the simplified

continuity, and energy equations for the mixture, the

version of the RP equation;

volume fraction equations for the secondary phases, and

y Bubbles are assumed to grow from an initial

algebraic expressions for the relative velocities (if the

average radius of RB and return (when condensing)

phases are moving at different velocities). The authors

to bubbles of the same size;

referred to [10] for a complete description of the

multiphase model implemented in Fluent V12. y All the bubbles in a system have the same size;

Additionally to a generic multiphase model, to y The are no thermal barriers to the droplet growth.

numerically reproduce cavitation phenomena, an On the basis of these assumptions, ZGB defined R as:

addition transport equation for the vapor phase has to be

solved: DRB

R n4S RB2 Uv (15)

Dt

x uur

(DUv ) (DUv Vv ) Re Rc (12)

xt where n is the number of bubbles per unit volume of the

mixture, available as nucleation sites. Substituting Eq.

where: (14) into Eq. (15):

D is the vapor volume fraction;

Uuuvr is the vapor density; 2 pv p

R n4S RB2 Uv sgn( pv p ) (16)

Vv is the vapor phase velocity; 3 Ul

Re is the mass transfer source term connected to the

vapor bubble growth; where n is given by:

Rc is the mass transfer source term connected to the

3D d

vapor bubble collapse. n Dm (17)

4S Rb3

This additional transport equation describes the liquid-

vapor mass transfer and it has to be solved together with during bubble vaporization, and:

the continuity and Navier-Stokes equations previously

3D v

presented for the mixture model. n (18)

In particular, to solve Eq. (12) it is necessary to model 4S Rb3

the mass transfer terms, Re and Rc by the cavitation

model. Different cavitation models adopt different during bubble condensation.

methodologies to model the mass transfer terms. In this Dm, Dv, and Dd represent respectively the volume

paper, the cavitation model proposed by Zwart-Gerber- fractions of the mixture, the vapor, and the dispersed

Belamri (ZGB) [11,12] was used. ZGB cavitation model phases. n is not the only parameter who changes

is based on the Rayleigh-Plesset equation (RP) [13] that depending on the direction of the phase change

describes the dynamic growth of a gas bubble nucleated (vaporization/condensation). In fact, the vaporization and

inside a liquid. condensation processes are also characterized by

The general form of RP equation is: different time scales: the condensation process is

typically slower than the evaporation process. To take

2 into account this difference, an empirical constant factor

D 2 RB 3 DRB pB p 4Vl 2S

RB RB (13) F has to be introduced in Eq. (16). All in all, the final

Dt 2 2 Dt U l RB U l RB equations for Re and Rc source terms are:

where: 3D nuc 1 D v Uv 2 pv p

Re Fvap (19)

RB is the bubble radius; RB 3 Ul

S is the liquid surface tension;

Ul is the liquid density; if p e pv (vaporization) and:

pB is the bubble surface pressure;

p is the local far-field pressure. 3D v Uv 2 p pv

Rc Fcond (20)

RB 3 Ul

Usually, within an Eulerian-Eulerian frameworks for

multiphase flow, a first order approximation of Eq. (13) is if p ! pv (condensation).

adopted neglecting also the surface tension force. By

Typical values for F are: 50 when vaporization occurs

these reductions, the Eq. (13) becomes:

and 0.001 when condensation occurs. These values

were obtained by experimental testing performed by [14]

and [15].

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

To use the presented cavitation model is necessary to at the vapor pressure and nominal fluid temperature.

define two other parameters: the mass fraction of non- The air was treated as ideal gas by the gas equation of

condensable dissolved gas Dnuc and an estimation of the state (local pressure and temperature information from

bubble radius RB. Typical values for these parameters the solution was used) and its concentration was set to

can be assumed as reported in Table 2. 0.1% as for the 1D simulations. Dissolved air was

considered because all liquids contain some dissolved

RB [m] 10e-6 gases: it is virtually impossible to eliminate them from

any substantial liquid volume [13].

Dnuc [-] 5e-4 Table 3 summarizes the physical characteristics of the

three fluid components (reference temperature 298.15

k).

Table 2: Cavitation model parameters.

Diffusive and convective fluxes were discretized

adopting first-order upwind scheme while turbulence

SIMULATION SET-UP was simulated by a standard k-H turbulence model

All the fork CFD simulations were performed by using [17,18].

Fluent v12 (Beta version), adopting a segregated flow

solver together with a fully implicit first-order transient Oil Fluid Oil Vapor Air

scheme [10]. In particular, to simulate the cavitation

phenomena, the mixture model was adopted together Density [kg/m^3] 875 0.0275 Ideal

Gas

with the Zwart-Gerber-Belamri (ZGB) cavitation model.

The adopted cavitation model was previously validated

on a typical simple throttle nozzle geometry for which Viscosity [kg/ms] 0.02839 7e-6 1.78e-5

experimental data were provided by Ferguson [16]. In

particular, Figure 14 shows the comparison between the Sat. pressure [Pa] - 2370 -

experimental and the numerical mass flow profiles. As

showed, the ZGB cavitation model predicted choked Table 3: Fluid physical characteristics.

mass flow value in reasonable agreement with 3D SIMULATION RESULTS

experiment.

By using the computational domain previously

25 presented, five 3D multiphase CFD simulations were

run. Table 4 shows the considered cases. These cases

24 were chosen on the basis of 1D model results which

denoted the fork axial velocity range between 600 and

23 700 mm/s as the transition range from non-cavitating to

Mass Flow [kg/hr]

cavitating conditions.

22

Case ID Axial velocity [mm/s]

21 CASE 3 300

CASE 6 600

Experimental mass flow profile

20 Numerical mass flow profile CASE 8 800

CASE 10 1000

19

0,8 0,83 0,86 0,89 0,92 0,95 0,98 CASE 11 1500

Root (DP/Prif) [-]

Table 4: Experimental configurations reproduced by the

Figure 14: Comparison between numerical and 3D simulation.

experimental nozzle mass flow profiles.

By the CFD simulations the compression hole incipient

cavitation condition was detected for a fork axial velocity

In all the simulations a flow with two-phases three- of 1000 mm/s, during the fork rebound phase. Figure 15

components was considered, assuming no interphase shows the velocity magnitude and vapor volume fraction

slip and thermal equilibrium between any observed inside the compression holes at the maximum

phase/component (Homogeneous Equilibrium Model).

'P value across the hole itself (fork axial velocity equal

The following phases were considered:

to 1000 mm/s). During this working phase the flow

y Fork oil in fluid state (primary phase); thought the compression holes was directed from the

y Fork oil in gaseous state (secondary phase); hollow tube to the external cylinder (Figure 1).

y Air as non-condensable gas (dissolved phase); Increasing the fork axial velocity, the cavitation

increased its intensity in terms of both vapor zone

The primary phase was treated as incompressible and expansion and vapor volume fraction. Figure 16 shows

the vapor density was assumed as a constant, evaluated the velocity magnitude and vapor concentration at the

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

fork axial velocity of 1500 mm/s (same solution time was treated as an ideal gas. Dissolved non-condensable

showed in Figure 15). gas has a significant influence on the fluid dynamic

behaviour of a component and, in particular, on

cavitation evolution. In fact, when voids are generated

inside a liquid flow containing dispersed gas, the void

filling process could be subdivided into two steps [13]:

y Firstly, when the local pressure of a liquid is

reduced sufficiently, dissolved gas starts to come

out of solution and it is diffused into the voids;

y Secondly, when pressure in the liquid is further

reduced, evaporation pressure of the liquid is

reached and the liquid starts to evaporate filling with

vapor the cavity.

By using the multiphase model here adopted it was

possible to reproduce the air compression/expansion

during the 3D CFD simulations.

(a) (b) Figure 17 shows the air volume fraction distribution

Figure 15: (a) Velocity magnitude and (b) vapor volume across the compression holes at a fork axial velocity of

fraction (Blue = 99.9% liquid Red = 100% vapor) 600 mm/s (3D simulation). Corresponding to the low

detected for a fork axial velocity of 1000 mm/s. pressure zone underlined in Figure 17-a, the air volume

concentration increased of 4 times (Figure 17-b) filling

the voids generated into the main liquid phase. The air

expansion could be considered as a sort of protection

from the cavitation. Only when the air expansion was not

enough to compensate the pressure reduction (fork axial

velocity higher than 1000 mm/s), the liquid vaporization

started. Also in AMESim a non-condensable gas

percentage equal to 0.1% was considered but it was not

possible to take into account its effect on the cavitation

evolution, therefore voids could be filled only by liquid

vaporization.

By these considerations, it was possible to state that:

y For fork axial velocity ranging from 600 to 1000

mm/s the disagreement between experimental and

1D numerical results (Figures 6-8) was due to air

expansion inside the fork compression holes which

(a) (b) reduced their discharge attitude;

Figure 16: (a) Velocity magnitude and (b) vapor volume y For fork axial velocity ranging from 1000 to 1500

fraction (Blue = 99.9% liquid Red = 100% vapor) mm/s the disagreement between experimental and

detected for a fork axial velocity of 1500 mm/s. 1D numerical results (Figures 8-9) was due to

cavitation phenomena detected inside the fork

3D CFD results were in agreement with 1D results in compression holes.

terms of cavitation generation phasing. In both cases,

inside the fork compression holes cavitation was All these considerations can be summarized in term of

detected during the fork rebound phase. On the other K, mass flow, and Cd evolutions.

hand, 3D and 1D approaches were in disagreement Figure 18 shows the relation between the K and the

about the cavitation inception point: mass flow rate evolutions for a compression hole. As

y 600 mm/s was the fork axial velocity at which 1D expected from the previous considerations, the K value

approach identifies cavitation inception condition; became constant (and equal to its critical value Kcrit) for

fork axial velocity higher than 1000 mm/s. Over this fork

y 1000 mm/s was the fork axial velocity at which 3D displacement velocity the mass flow through the

approach identifies cavitation inception condition; compression hole became almost constant meaning that

choked flow condition was reached.

The disagreement between 1D and 3D results in terms

Figure 19 shows the relation between Cd and K

of cavitation inception condition could be explained

evolutions. As expected, until the displacement velocity

considering the effect of non-condensable gases

value of 1000 mm/s, the Cd value progressively

dissolved into the main liquid phase.

decreased because of the air expansion increased with

As described in the 3D simulation set-up section, the

the fork vertical velocity (i.e. with the velocity magnitude

non-condensable gas percentage was set to 0.1% and it

across the hole). After the displacement velocity value of

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

because of cavitation inception and evolution.

It is to underline as the Kcrit value extrapolated by the 2.5

3D multiphase analysis was quite different with respect

to the value defined a priori to perform the 1D 2 0.5

simulations previously presented.

1.5

1 0.45

0.5 K'

Cd

0 0.4

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Vertical velocity [mm/s]

compression hole.

LUMPED 1D MODEL

(a) (b) implemented into the AMESim set-up of the four

compression holes. The goal was to obtain a fully

Figure 17: (a) Static pressure distribution and (b) air predictive 1D model on the whole fork axial velocity

volume fraction concentration detected for a fork axial working range. Next, the new 1D simulation results are

velocity of 600 mm/s (Blue = Lower value Red = presented.

Higher value).

1D FORK MODEL VALIDATION AFTER THE

INTEGRATION BY 3D CFD RESULTS

3 0.24

K' Figures from 20 to 24 show the most significant

Dimensionless mass flow rate Q [-]

Qreal

y Experimental data (named EXP);

Cavitation number K [-]

2 0.16

y Stand-alone 1D model, i.e. model without any

integration with 3D results (named SIM);

1.5 0.12

y 1D model integrated by 3D results (named SIM 1D-

3D);

1 0.08

0.5 0.04

simulation and experiment was drastically improved and

all the discrepancies underlined in Figures 6-9 were

0 0 fixed.

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Vertical velocity [mm/s] These results confirmed not only the validity of the

proposed methodology, but also that the discrepancies

previously detected were enrolled to an incorrect 1D set-

Figure 18: Dimensionless mass flow rate and cavitation up of Cd and K values.

number K profiles for a compression hole.

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

3

6

EXP

2 EXP

SIM

Dimensionless damping force [-]

4 SIM

SIM 1D-3D

SIM 1D-3D

1 2

0

0

-2

-1

-4

-2

-6

-3

-8

-4 -10

-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20

Piston rod displacement [mm] Piston rod displacement [mm]

Figure 20: Experimental and simulated dimensionless Figure 23: Experimental and simulated dimensionless

damping force trace, with and without 3D integration, damping force trace, with and without 3D integration,

versus piston rod displacement CASE 6: 600 mm/s. versus piston rod displacement CASE 10: 1000 mm/s.

3 12

EXP EXP

2 SIM 8

Dimensionless damping force [-]

SIM

SIM 1D-3D SIM 1D-3D

1 4

0 0

-4

-1

-8

-2

-12

-3

-16

-4

-20

-5 -24

-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20

Piston rod displacement [mm] Piston rod displacement [mm]

Figure 21: Experimental and simulated dimensionless Figure 24: Experimental and simulated dimensionless

damping force trace, with and without 3D integration, damping force trace, with and without 3D integration,

versus piston rod displacement CASE 7: 700 mm/s. versus piston rod displacement CASE 11: 1500 mm/s.

4 CONCLUSIONS

EXP

SIM

Dimensionless damping force [-]

2 SIM 1D-3D

In this paper a new integrated 1D-3D methodology was

defined and tested to reproduce the fluid dynamic

behavior of a fork for motorcycle application. In

0 particular, authors attention was focused on the

cavitation problem.

-2 First of all, the fork was studied by using its 1D model

implemented in AMESim code. 1D cavitation model was

used to understand where and how cavitating flow

-4

conditions could be reached. By 1D simulations it was

possible to obtain a good reproduction of the fork overall

-6 performance in comparison to the experimental results.

-20 -10 0 10 20 However, above axial fork velocities of 600 mm/s the 1D

Piston rod displacement [mm] model results provided an underestimation of the

maximum fork rebound characteristic. In particular, this

Figure 22: Experimental and simulated dimensionless underestimation became significant above fork axial

damping force trace, with and without 3D integration, velocity of 1000 mm/s. A deep analysis of the 1D

versus piston rod displacement CASE 8: 800 mm/s.

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

simulation results highlighted how cavitation occurred 6. Nurick, W.H., Orifice Cavitation and Its Effects on

inside the compression holes during the rebound phase. Spray Mixing,, J. Fluid Eng., Vol. 98, pp. 681-

Therefore the authors identified the 1D cavitation set-up 687,1976.

as one of the main problem of the discrepancy between 7. Schimdt, D. P., and Corradini, M. L.Analytical

experimental and numerical results. Prediction of Exit Flow in Cavitating Orifices,

To solve the problem, the fluid dynamic conditions Atomization and Sprays, Vol. 7, pp. 603-616, 1997.

across the compression holes were studied adopting a 8. Bianchi, G.M., Falfari, S., Parotto, M., Osbat, G.,

3D CFD multiphase simulation approach by using Fluent Advanced Modeling of Common Rail Injector

v12 (beta version). CFD simulations underlined as: Dynamics and Comparison with Experiments, SAE

y Above fork axial velocities of 600 mm/s a significant 2003-01-0006, March 2003, SAE 2003

air expansion was detected inside the compression Transactions- SAE Journal of Engines, Vol. 112, pp.

holes producing a reduction of their Cd value. 55-73.

Moreover the air expansion acted as a sort of 9. Bianchi, G.M., Falfari, S., Brusiani, F., Pelloni, P.,

cavitation protection until the fork axial velocity of Osbat, G., Parotto, M., Lamberti, C., Advanced

1000 mm/s; Modelling of a New Diesel Fast Solenoid Injector

y Above fork axial velocities of 1000 mm/s the liquid and Comparison with Experiments, SAE 2004-01-

pressure was further reduced and liquid 0019, March 2004, SAE 2004 Transactions- SAE

evaporation started; Journal of Engines, Vol. 113, pp. 1-15

10. Fluent v12 User Manual, Fluent Inc.

Results from CFD simulations were derived in terms of

11. Zwart, P. J., Gerber, A. G., Belamri, T., A Two-

Kcrit and Cd values. These were integrated into the 1D

Phase Flow Model for Predicting Cavitation

fork model obtaining a significant improvement about its

predictive capabilities on all the whole considered fork Dynamics, Fifth International Conference on

vertical velocity working range. Multiphase Flow, Yokohama, Japan, 2004.

This result confirms not only the validity of the proposed 12. Bakir, F., Rey, R., Gerber, A. G., Belamri, T.,

methodology but also the importance about the Hutchinson, B., Numerical and Experimental

integration between 1D and 3D simulation approaches. Investigations of the Cavitating Behavior of an

On the basis of the numerical results here presented, Inducer, International Journal of Rotating Machine,

the fork prototype was improved by PAIOLI 10: 15-25, 2004.

MECCANICA in terms of damping effect evolution along 13. Benner, C. E., Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics,

the fork rebound phase. Oxford University Press, 1995.

14. Gerber, A. G., A CFD Model for Devices Operating

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Under Extensive Cavitation Condition, IMEC, New

Orleans, USA, IMECE 2002-39315, 2002.

Authors would like to thanks PAIOLI MECCANICA for its 15. Shen, Y., Dimotakis, P., A The Influence of Surface

nd

support and collaboration about paper drawing. Cavitation on Hydrodynamic Forces, Proc. 22

ATTC, St. Hohns, pp. 44-53, 1989.

REFERENCES 16. Ferguson, S., Validation of CFD Throttle

Cavitation, Computational Dynamic Limited, UK,

1. Liberati M., Beghi, A., Mezzalira S., Peron S., Grey- 2001.

box Modelling of a Motorcycle Shock Absorber, 17. Ferziger, J. H., Peric, M., Computational Methods

TuB09.2, 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and for Fluid Dynamics, Springer, 2001.

Control, December 2004, Bahamas. 18. Versteeg, H. K., Malalasekera, W., An Introduction

2. Martins P. F., Spogis N., De la Rosa Squeira C., to Computational Fluid Dynamics, Longman, 2007.

Development and Validation of a CFD Model to

Investigate the Oil Flow in a Shock Absorber, SAE DEFINITIONS

2005-01-4030 E, SAE Brasil 2004, Brasil.

3. Choon-Tae Lee, Byung-Young Moon, Simulation A: Area [m2]

and Experimental Validation of Vehicle Dynamic Ap: Piston area [m2]

Characteristics for Displacement-sensitive Shock Arod: Rod area [m2]

Absorber Using Fluid-Flow Modeling, Mechanical B: Bulk modulus [Pa]

System and Signal Processing 2004, Elsevier. b: Leakage perimeter of annulus section [m]

4. Falfari, S., Brusiani, F., Cazzoli, G., Setup of a 1D c: Viscous dampimg coefficient [kg/s]

Model for Simulating Dynamic Behaviour of Cc: Contraction coefficient [-]

Motorcycle forks, SAE 2009-01-0226, SAE Cd: Discharge coefficient [-]

International Congress and Exhibition, Detroit, USA d: Hole diameter [m]

2009. Fspring: Spring force [N]

5. AMESim User Manual, v. 8.0 Fdamp: Damping force [N]

Ffriction: Friction force [N]

h: Height of annulus section [m]

Downloaded from SAE International by Wuhan Univ of Technology, Friday, November 17, 2017

k: Isentropic index of air [-]

K: Cavitation number [-] D: vapor volume fraction [-]

l: Length of annulus section [m] U: Fluid density [kg/m3]

m: Mass [kg] Ul: Liquid density [kg/m3]

n: Number of bubbles per unit volume of the mixture Uv: Vapor density [kg/m3]

p: Pressure [Pa] P: Dynamic viscosity [kg/ms]

Q: Volumetric flow rate [m3/s]

r: hole inlet radius [m] SUBSCRIPT

RB: Bubble radius [m]

S: Liquid surface tension [N/m2] Ch2: Chamber 2

v: Velocity [m/s] Ch3: Chamber 3

V: Volume [m3] m: mixture

r

Vv : Vapor phase velocity [m/s] nuc: non-condensable dissolved gas

v: vapour

d: dispersed phase

- Use of PyroSim for Simulation of Cinema FireUploaded byIDES
- Implemenration of an Eulerian Multi Phase Model in OpenFOAM and Its Application to Polydisperse Two Phase FlowsUploaded byAghajani
- Simulation of Flow Through a Pump Sump and Its ValidationUploaded byJaydev Chakraborty
- EAEC 2011 Presentation - Ruben Jacob DUploaded byrubenhjd
- Project CFD GuideUploaded byshinban
- 24 Ratnayake Melaaen DattaUploaded bySen Van
- MS Thesis TopicsUploaded byprasunchatterjee95
- Computational Fluid Dynamics ME880 01.pdfUploaded byAbdul Hakeem Semar Kamaluddin
- Aplications HidroelasticityUploaded byJorge Cipriano
- Numerical Analysis of Ship MotionUploaded byAbhi
- NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICLE STRAIN AND BREAKAGE IN TURBULENT DISPERSIONSUploaded byidownloadbooksforstu
- SPE 2077494Uploaded byNoolOotsil
- 1--Conservation Laws of Fluid Motion and Boundary ConditionsUploaded byAbaziz Mousa OutlawZz
- Final Report Format 20142Uploaded byVicous Nurin
- A Computational Fluid Dynamics Approach for Optimization of a Sensor NetworkUploaded byedemello80
- IACM_ECCOMAS(2014)Uploaded byArindam Sen
- IC+9162+COMPUTATIONAL+FLUID+DYNAMICSUploaded bydraj1875977
- Chapter-3_Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in a Mixing Elbow_20160419Uploaded byLi
- Course Matching Template (for Ms Chong).XlsUploaded byWang Yi Dan
- 845302Uploaded byPratik Patel
- Recent Advances in FEMUploaded byRaj kumar
- Numerical Simulation of the Transient Flow in 2013Uploaded byEuler Cauchi
- Chapter 1 - IntroductionUploaded bysai ashwindran
- 25849-110954-1-PBUploaded byLaura Lungu
- Resume PhDUploaded bySurya Sampath Emani
- advanced computaional methodsUploaded bySatya Vallabh
- M.Tech CM LAB MANUAL.docxUploaded by9700216256
- [Intro to CAE] Fundamentals of CFDUploaded byVrani
- Estimation of Added Resistance and Ship Speed Loss in a SeawayUploaded byJoa
- Trushar CVUploaded bysaleem

- Code Coupling, A New Approach to Enhance CFDUploaded bywen liu
- Heavy Duty Truck Cooling System Design Using Co-SimulationUploaded bywen liu
- Convection Heat Transfer Coefficient EstimatingUploaded bywen liu
- Tecplot10 Introduction to TecplotUploaded bywen liu
- Prism NoPyramidsUploaded byTrupti Bonde
- The Application of PIV to the Study of Unsteadygas Dynamic Flow Within Pipes and at PipediscontinuitiesUploaded bywen liu
- Unsteady and Transient Flow OfUploaded bywen liu
- 10.1007%2Fs11630-016-0835-1Uploaded bywen liu
- 10b8e4fd14fd4ab25b73d17cb98111ec8856.pdfUploaded bywen liu
- AMESim与FLUENT联合仿真技术实现方法及工程应用_陈士强Uploaded bywen liu
- 1-s2.0-S0045793012004057-mainUploaded bywen liu
- 边界层理论(Boundary Layer Theory)Uploaded bywen liu
- ANSYS CFD Post Tutorials Version 17Uploaded byIntan Luruh Larasati
- Mechanical APDL Technology Demonstration Guide r170Uploaded byBhaskar Nandi
- A Brief on Tensor AnalysisUploaded byAntonio Alatorre

- The Motion of an Aircraft Through the Air Can Be Explained and Described by Physical Principals Discovered Over 300 Years Ago by Sir Isaac NewtonUploaded bySilokshan Balasingam
- Electromagnetic Waves in PhysicsUploaded byHemal Rajput
- 0.2.pdfUploaded byMarkanday Giri
- Design and Analysis of Cooling Methods for Solar PanelsUploaded byospino
- Electric Charge & Electric Field.pdfUploaded byRam Pineda
- 183-187-IVK3-2011-LjM-TV-ZR-MJ-MZ-DD.pdfUploaded bynermin
- Impact of Corrugations on Bifurcation and Thermoelastic Responses of Hat-stiffened PanelsUploaded bybhatiamanavgmail
- Slides_19.09.2013Uploaded bySidra Javeed
- Experiment 3Uploaded byAshish Verma
- Momentum and Impulse ReportUploaded byDan
- 2006_tesis_powers-Panolkaltsis_mechanical Behavior of Ceramics at High TemperaturesUploaded byjvalverdegarcia
- Sample Calculation for Base BlockUploaded byGaurav Kumar
- Economics - CopyUploaded bysedexx
- Clutch AssemblyUploaded byirina_petresscu
- Energy MeterUploaded bySuresh Kornepati
- Activity sheet-12 (Ions and number of sub-atomic particles).docUploaded byNkemzi Elias Nzetengenle
- b98962Uploaded byrybk
- Extended EssayUploaded byRichardZhang
- Military handbook Mil Hdbk 411bUploaded bythomas.bhatia
- CM-003Uploaded byamartinez_127538
- Test for Bulk Density and Voids in AggregateUploaded byYago Mendoza
- Allen Paper 1Uploaded byRahul Sethi
- Mto Oep FinalUploaded byChemical Engg.
- 1-s2.0-S0301679X1000263X-main (1)Uploaded byseansoto
- Elements of Fracture MechanicsUploaded byMachine Design
- A15_PHY_203-NYC-05_702_WaveUploaded byNicole Wong
- DC_machinesUploaded byTatishraj Raj
- Fiber Bragg Gratings, A. Othonos 1999 With TextUploaded byfadaei48
- Chemistry DanialUploaded byAshila Durgashini
- DvcprAUploaded bykmessile