|
[Sponsors] |
interDyMFoam for shot sleeve dynamics-wave generation |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
August 24, 2021, 08:50 |
interDyMFoam for shot sleeve dynamics-wave generation
|
#1 |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
Hi
I am trying to simulate the shot sleeve wave dynamics in high pressure die casting. There is a tutorial in Chalmers "Modeling high-pressure die casting: A tutorial" by Sebastian Kohlstädt. I think its quite natural to use interDyMFoam as the plunger physically moves. I had the linearValveLayersFvMesh modified to account for the mesh movement without sliding. The simulations run fine however the melt height predicted seems to be higher to what is being reported in the paper. I will attach the case files. I think the wave generation dynamics is not included in the interDyMFoam so the melt height increases in the back wall. Any suggestions are welcomed. pistonLayersFvMesh.C Code:
dynamicFvMesh pistonLayersFvMesh; patch movingWalls; pistonVelocity (0.6 0 0); minThickness 0.0005; maxThickness 0.0010; Code:
convertToMeters 1e-3; vertices ( (0 0 0) //00 (0 50.8 0) //01 (440.2 0 0) //02 (440.2 50.8 0) //03 (457.2 0 0) //04 (457.2 50.8 0) //05 (0 0 1) //06 (0 50.8 1) //07 (440.2 0 1) //08 (440.2 50.8 1) //09 (457.2 0 1) //10 (457.2 50.8 1) //11 ); blocks ( hex (0 2 3 1 6 8 9 7) sleeve (100 25 1) simpleGrading (1 1 1) //block0 hex (2 4 5 3 8 10 11 9) fixed (4 25 1) simpleGrading (1 1 1) //block1 ); boundary ( slipWalls { type wall; faces ( (0 6 8 2) (3 9 7 1) (2 8 10 4) ); } movingWalls { type wall; faces ( (1 7 6 0) ); } fixedWalls { type wall; faces ( (4 10 11 5) ); } outlet { type patch; faces ( (5 11 9 3) ); } frontAndBack { type empty; faces ( (6 7 9 8) (0 2 3 1) (2 4 5 3) (8 9 11 10) ); } ); mergePatchPairs(); The simulations seems quite simple but the melt height as suggested in the paper was not attainable. "On determining the critical velocity in the high-pressure die casting machine’s shot sleeve using CFD" S. Kohlstädt , M. Vynnycky , S. Goeke , A. Gebauer-Teichmann. At a lost. Now I am trying to incorporate wave dynamics into the model as interDyMFoam is not doing the job. Any suggestions are welcomed. |
|
August 24, 2021, 08:56 |
|
#2 |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
The piston movement is time dependent and it has been incorporated in the pistonLayersFvMesh. The layer deletion seems working fine. I will post the result as compared to the paper. Cheers.
|
|
August 24, 2021, 08:59 |
|
#3 |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
melt height at 1.47s.png
In the paper, the back melt height at the back wall is much less as compared to the results I am getting. |
|
September 8, 2021, 07:19 |
|
#4 |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
I tried the boundary conditions for pressure and velocity. Now the moving wall velocity should give me a velocity normal to the moving patch. So the y-direction should have zero implied velocity. I think flux made relative in Dym codes read the U solutions and make it relative to the Wall motion prescribed. So any y-dir velocity would be made relative. Is there something I can constrain the motion or is it that I am getting these things wrong..
|
|
September 8, 2021, 07:23 |
|
#5 | |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
Quote:
Aboudi_HDPC.zip |
||
September 8, 2021, 07:27 |
|
#6 |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
The shallow water approximations are not applied. I tried commenting out the surface tension term in the code interDyMFoam but the results were not too different. I want to compare interDyMFoam with VOF NS eq after considering shallow water approximations. Even the hydrodynamic pr case means i should specify pd=0 so that p = rho*(g.h). Any help in validation will be welcomed.
|
|
September 21, 2021, 10:09 |
|
#7 |
Member
Michael Sukham
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: India
Posts: 85
Rep Power: 6 |
I came across a tutorial on Chalmers about depth averaged velocity which incorporates the 1D hydrodynamic cases. There is substantial difference in the way VOF is calculated. I think that's the reason why the interface height is quite higher. I will try with potentialFreeSurfaceDyMFoam and post the results. Though the melt height extraction from the result, we need to do some post processing
|
|
Tags |
high pressure die casting, interdymfoam, shot sleeve, wave dynamics |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
interFoam wave propagation and explosion of Courant number and residuals | ChiaraViola | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 1 | June 26, 2019 06:36 |
[waves2Foam] regular wave generation attenuation | yangzhou | OpenFOAM Community Contributions | 3 | June 29, 2017 05:34 |
[waves2Foam] NWT wave generation problem | Alex song | OpenFOAM Community Contributions | 0 | April 24, 2016 05:54 |
IHFOAM - Wave generation with moving boundaries | Phicau | OpenFOAM Verification & Validation | 0 | May 18, 2015 05:53 |
Wave generation, wave height reduces as it progresses | haku88 | STAR-CCM+ | 1 | August 6, 2013 20:32 |