Archive for the ‘Case Studies’ Category

What Can’t You Design In SolidWorks?

Monday, February 25th, 2013

RC Hovercraft #1

For this blog series I wanted to design something from scratch.  Not necessarily a new idea but something fun and cool.  My intention is to design a Remote Control Hovercraft from the ground up.

I want to give you a brief description and history of a Hovercraft:

A hovercraft or air-cushion vehicle is a vehicle capable of travelling over variable surfaces, such as land and water.  The hovercraft operates by forcing a high pressure of air between the bottom of the craft and the surface below.  This high pressure of air lifts the vehicle upward essentially “hovering” above the ground on a cushion of air. The first practical design for hovercraft derived from several coinciding inventions in the 1950s to 1960s. They are now used throughout the world as specialized vehicles for transport and other applications.

500px-Hovercraft_-_scheme.svg

  1. Propulsion Propellers
  2.  Air
  3. Lifting Fan
  4. Flexible skirt

YouTube Preview Image

I have specific goals in mind that I want to meet in the design and build of this project.

 

Goals of the Hovercraft Design:

  • Utilize the SolidWorks and SolidWorks Simulation Suite of software to develop and optimize the hover craft design.
  • The RC Hovercraft’s main components will be 3D Printed using the Stratasys UPrint.
  • Easy to Assemble. I want to make the assembly as easy and as straight forward as possible with concise instructions.
  • For purchased components, use low cost, off the shelf components including the electric motors, electronic speed control (ESC), batteries, and propellers.

I am starting from just an idea, and a sketch. We will see where the design leads.

Hover Craft2

Flow Simulation and the 75 Dollar Question

Friday, June 22nd, 2012

Is it worth the extra 75 dollars for a long tube header versus a short tube?

Let’s start answering this by examining how an exhaust header works, and why you would want one.  Headers are one of the easiest bolt-on accessories you can use to improve an engine’s performance. The goal of headers is to make it easier for the engine to push exhaust gases out of the cylinders.

 

To further understand why the exhaust manifold has an impact on performance let’s review the  combustion cycle of a gasoline engine.

  1. The intake stroke-  Starts with the piston at the top of the cylinder.  As the piston moves downward the intake valve opens allowing the air fuel mixture to enter the cylinder.
  2. The compression stroke-  Moves the piston back up to compress this air fuel mixture, causing the ignition of the air fuel mixture to be more powerful.
  3. The combustion stroke –  When the piston reaches the top of the cylinder, the spark plug emits a spark to ignite the gasoline. The gasoline charge in the cylinder explodes, driving the piston down.
  4. The exhaust stroke- Once the piston hits the bottom of its stroke, the exhaust valve opens and the exhaust leaves the cylinder to go out the header.

During the exhaust stroke, back pressure robs the engine of power. The exhaust valves open at the beginning of the exhaust stroke, and then the piston pushes the exhaust gases out of the cylinder. The more resistance there is to the piston expelling the exhaust gases, the greater the power loss.

Once the exhaust gases exit the cylinder they end up in the exhaust manifold. In a four-cylinder engine, all cylinders utilize the same manifold. From the manifold, the exhaust gases flow into one pipe toward the catalytic converter and the ­muffler. The idea behind an exhaust header is to eliminate the manifold’s back pressure. Instead of a common manifold that all of the cylinders share, each cylinder gets its own exhaust pipe. Old hot-rodder intuition, gut feel, and experimentation lead to each pipe being the same length, and using a two into one set up. Two into one specifies that the pipe leading from two cylinders merge into one.  In the case of a four cylinder, pipes from cylinders 1 and 2 lead to one pipe, and pipes from cylinders 3 and 4 lead to one pipe.  Those two pipes then merge again into the collector. The two into one method “smoothes” the flow through the pipe causing less turbulence when the flow fields merge.  These pipes come together in a larger pipe called the collector. By making them the same length, it guarantees that each cylinder’s exhaust gases arrive in the collector spaced out equally so there is no back pressure generated by the cylinders sharing the collector. Basically Header=Power, and we all want more power.

The 75 dollar question arose from my sister.  She is considering replacing her stock exhaust manifold with an after-market header, and was wondering what was the best “bang for the buck”.  After researching the topic extensively we found that across all the after-market brands the designs seemed to be the same regarding pipe routing, materials, etc.  So the main question came down to should she buy the “short tube” or “long tube” header?

Both the “long tube” and “short tube” headers have equal length pipes from the engine block to the collector.  Both ran a two into one method.  The long tube header however claims that since it is longer by design there would be less back pressure due to a smoother flow.  The differentiator was about 75 dollars, and the fact that the “long tube” header would need the catalytic converter to be moved and remounted by a muffler shop.  The “short tube” header is a direct bolt in.

I couldn’t resist turning to Flow Simulation to solve this question.

We purchased the long and short tube headers, and removed the stock manifold to be able to accurately take measurements from them.  The models are close but not exact without a reverse engineering tool such as a scanner or arm.

After the models were completed the next step became the boundary conditions.  I was able to find a good reference guide located on line from www.donaldsonexhaust.com.  Given the engine Horsepower, cubic inch displacement, and operating RPM I was able to determine Intake airflow, and exhaust gas flow in CFM.

This calculated the exhaust gas CFM to be 520.00 CFM, or 130.0 CFM per port. Please see the hand calculations below.

Yes Engineers Still Do Hand Calcs

Knowing the CFM of the exhaust leaving the cylinder allows us to compare pressure drop from the inlet to outlet across the three manifold models.  The stock exhaust will be the base line for comparison.

 

Model Set Up:

 

Inlet Condition:                130 CFM per inlet port

Outlet Condition:             Environmental Pressure

Surface Goals:                   Each Inlet Goal – Static Pressure / Mass Flow Rate

Outlet Goal – Static Pressure / Mass Flow Rate

Results:


Stock Flow Path

Stock Pressure Gradient

Short Tube Pressure Gradient

Short Tube Flow Trajectories

Long Tube Pressure Gradient

 

Summary:

 

The “short tube” header is hands down the best value.  Both after-market headers showed a drastic decrease in pressure drop over the stock manifold however, the “long tube” header only had an edge over the “short tube” pressure by 0.019 PSI.  As a bonus the “short tube is a direct bolt in, not requiring the existing catalytic converter to be moved.  As Engineers we are always worried about time and money, and are often faced with a decision regarding these two factors.  From my engineering background and proof provided by flow I recommended the “short tube” header.

Model Aircraft Control Surface Spacing and SolidWorks Flow Simulation

Saturday, August 27th, 2011

June 2011 AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) Model Aviation magazine had an interesting article Titled “Two of the Big Five model misadjustments” written by Dean Pappas. The two misadjustments were Hinge Gap, and Lateral Balance.

The article caught my attention specifically due to the “flow” diagrams drawn in the article explaining airflow over the wing section and aileron control surface. In the below diagram, taken from the article, Dean explains three cases of air flow relative to a control surface.

  1. Clean airflow at the neutral control surface desired for level flight.
  2. When up or down direction is applied to the control surface the air opposite the control surface direction of travel redirects the flow to reattach. This case shows a tight fit between control surface and main structure.
  3. Hinge gaps allow high-pressure air to leak from one side to the other. This weakens airflow on top of control surface partially destroying the bottom airflows ability to rejoin it. The result is poor control surface response during slow speeds.
AMA Article Diagram

AMA Article Diagram

According to the article ”The high pressure on top, as shown would leak through, given a chance. That chance would be a gap in the elevator and control surface. The result is a flat sheet of air that squirts through the gap and distorts the outside of the hinge line. This reduces the effectiveness of the elevator and creates extra drag.”

This section piqued my interest as the hinge gap shown is very large, probably for demonstration purposes. Being an avid RC aircraft modeler I suspected that the small gaps I have in my personal aircraft’s control surfaces may not cause this affect. My hypothesis is that a very large unrealistic gap will cause this affect however using standard hinge techniques this affect will not be as dramatic as the article states. According to the article large hinge gaps can be sealed with strips of MonoKote covering resolving the problem. MonoKote is a heat shrink Mylar covering that is a standard in RC Aircraft construction.

This blogs purpose is to investigate the hinge gap spacing required to cause an airflow disturbance and air leak through the gap area.

Before we get into the model specifics let’s talk a little about aircraft wing terminology. Below is a diagram explaining common wing dimensions and terminology. The chord length is the distance from the leading edge of the wing or elevator to the trailing edge. The model used in this Flow Analysis is a 5.5″ main wing chord. 0.5″ of the chord is the control surface . The airfoil is symmetrical so the upper and lower camber are equal. The model consists of an extruded wing section with one hinge placed in the middle of the wing.

Airfoil.svg

Three hinge types are standard in the RC modeling community. All hinges are typically spaced evenly across the control surface.

  • Standard plastic barrel hinge comprised of two halves held together with a pin. The hinge is typically screwed or glued into place with the barrel tight against both mating sections. Hinges are typically 0.25″-0.5″ wide by 0.5-1″ total length. The barrel typically ranges from 0.0625″-0.125″ in diameter.
  • CA hinges are flat woven wicking material that is inserted into a slot cut in the components. No or little gap is present with this style hinge. CA or Cyanoacrylate glue is used to wick through the hinge and bond with the hinged components.
  • MonoKote hinges are seldom used in modeling except for small aircraft. The MonoKote hinge is typically a strip of MonoKote that is applied to the top and bottom of the hinge area.

SolidWorks Flow simulation was used to investigate the control surface configurations of four models.

  1. A base line neutral control surface position using a no gap CA hinge Type.
  2. Upward deflected control surface using a no gap CA hinge type.
  3. Upward deflected control surface using a Standard plastic hinge with an 0.0625″ barrel diameter.
  4. Upward deflected control surface using a CA Hinge and gap of 0.25″

All configurations have a 10 ft/second flow rate and a 0 degree angle of attack. The flow analysis was an external flow problem. A localized mesh control was used for each run to capture refined accurate results across the model boundary. All other default conditions were used for the flow setup.

Mesh

Note All plots show a Pressure cut plot and Velocity Flow Trajectories.

Results:

  • The base line model showed a symmetrical pressure on either side of the wing at 14.6 psi and a hinge crossing velocity of 16.45 ft/sec. This is expected results for the area section, hinge, and aileron placement.

Neutral Velocity and Pressure

  • Flow Run Two shows a higher pressure on top of the aileron of 14.696 psi and a lower pressure on the bottom of 14.694 psi. The flow velocity across the top of the control surface drops to 5.9 ft/sec while the bottom speeds up to 11.2 ft/sec. As the article states the air “bends” to re attach to the flow at the trailing edge. This results in a turbulence on the bottom of the control surface aiding in the force of the air on the top of the control surface to push the trailing edge down.

Aileron Up CA Hinge

YouTube Preview Image
  • Flow Run Three demonstrates the 0.0625″ barrel hinge gap and the resulting air flow. The run does show airflow across the gap boundary, however probing the area the velocity in this gap is zero. The flow does extend past the wing trailing edge longer than the non-gap position, however the flow does fully rejoin. The same recirculation under the control surface is seen . The pressure on the end of control surface is however higher at 14.699 psi and lower on the bottom at 14.692 psi. The results show negligible flow through the gap and under most circumstances(slow flight) should not cause loss of control due to bleed through.

Aileron Up 00625 Gap

YouTube Preview Image
  • Run Four had the largest gap similar to the gap in the article’s diagram. The flow results show airflow across the gap boundary and a velocity of the airflow in the gap of 3 ft/sec. The flow does extend past the wing trailing edge longer than the non-gap position and does not rejoin. The recirculation does cause a pressure equalization under and over the control surface. Loss of control surface effectiveness would occur in this scenario.

Aileron Up 025 Hinge Gap

YouTube Preview Image

Conclusions: The article is correct to a point. The gap shown in his diagram would cause a control surface loss of effectiveness, however the gap is way too large to be considered realistic. Most experienced modelers know common practice is to get as tight of a fit between control surface and structure be it a wing, elevator, or rudder. A large gap is not only detrimental but is also unsightly and most modelers avoid them for the aesthetic reasons alone. If a modeler sticks to the new CA hinge or follows correct installation practice for a plastic hinge they will be alright in their flying endeavors.

“We’ve got a digital flow bench, we don’t need no stinkin’ flow balls!”

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Traditionally air flow benches have been used since the late 70′s by racing oriented shops to optimize the air flow in engine cylinder heads, manifolds and other intake/exhaust devices. Originally developed by OEM’s this technology has since been commercialized into a thriving aftermarket industry. This approach has yielded great gains and understanding of cylinder head flow behavior. However, this technology is at its limit and many of the measurement techniques affect the very measurement you are trying to make. With the advent of desktop programs like SolidWorks FlowSimulation, CFD analysis of cylinder head flow is now no longer in the sole domain of the OEM’s of high end users. Coupled with current flow bench empirical data this technology will take this knowledge to the next level! Another tool in the racer’s toolbox in the never ending quest for speed!”

Click here to read the full article written by our partner and friend David Woodruff from Design Dreams, LLC. http://www.aera.org/ep/downloads/ep12/EP10-2010_48-49.pdf

Also, if you plan to attend the IMIS show in Indianapolis, stop by the 3DVision Technologies booth #2441. David, along with many of our 3DVision Technical and Sales team members, will be there.

Bear
Bear