Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Thermal Analysis of a Vehicle Disc Brake in a Multi-Stop Scenario

Josh Pryor | jjp@thermoanalytics.com

Introduction
Disc brake simulations can be

complex to mesh and setup Previous UGM talks have discussed:


Heat application techniques CFD convection

Meshing techniques (shell vs. solid)

This effort starts from a solid-

meshed vented disc brake Main question: how to effectively use CFD for a multi-stop scenario?
2

Convection options
RadTherm convection (automatic library or assigned HTC) Fast and easy to setup Difficult to capture effects of vent designs or upstream flow effects (vents, shields, etc.) Typical transient CFD coupling

(local fluid temperature-based HTC):

Run multiple steady-state cases corresponding to different points in

time of a RadTherm transient model Different CFD case is needed anytime flow conditions or surface temperatures change significantly

Depending on the stop profile, this most likely requires 6-20 CFD cases per stop (60-500 total cases!)

One-way CFD coupling

(reference fluid temperature-based HTC):


Assume that convection effects are primarily based on flow conditions

(which are cyclical) and not on local surface temperatures Run enough CFD cases to cover velocity profile of one stop (6-20 total cases)
3

Thermal model
Brake geometry only
Rotor, pads, caliper Heat applied to pad surface Pads linked to rotor with generic thermal

link (intermediate node approach)

276,000 total elements


Rotor & pads primarily hexa & prism

elements Caliper uses tet elements

CFD model
Front quarter-car model
Includes heat

exchangers, grille, front fascia, basic underhood, wheels/tires, suspension, brake parts

5.7 million volume

elements (polyhedral)

CFD selected cases


6 points were used to

characterize the velocity profile for each stop 6 cases are set up and run for each corresponding velocity
Surface temperatures

estimated from middle stop of standalone thermal model

Reference temperature

approach:

Convection from these 6

cases are imported repeatedly to capture full profile

Selecting the convection coefficient reference temperature


Most straightforward approach is to use the ambient

temperature as the reference

This will result in valid convection coefficients if all surface elements

in question are experiencing local cooling This works well for hotter parts (rotor/pads), but breaks down for cooler parts (caliper)

In this model, the caliper was experiencing local heating Reference temperature therefore needs to be hotter than the typical caliper temperature and cooler than typical rotor temperature 57o C was used This temperature is consistent with typical fluid temperatures near the brake (due to heating from the brake and underhood) and results in realistic convection coefficients

Importing CFD Results


After 6 neutral files are

derived from CFD cases with convection data, each must be imported 20 times
Once during speed-up and

slow-down of each stop

Batch script is used to


radtherm importCFD

automate this process


settings.txt save model.tdf Before each import, the time value in settings.txt is replaced with the next value

CFD Flow Results (50 kph)


Wheel-well vent has little impact on brake Most incoming flow from under wheelwell Some from underhood

CFD Convection Results

96 kph

67 kph

50 kph

38 kph

19 kph

4 kph

10

Thermal Results
Part average temperatures
350 Temperature (deg C) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 75 175 275 375 475 575 675 775 875 975 Time (s) Rotor contact face (inboard) Rotor Pads Caliper Rotor contact face (inboard) (standalone) Rotor (standalone) Pads (standalone) Caliper (standalone)

Rotor and pad temperatures significantly cooler with CFD convection Peak temperatures similar Caliper temperatures somewhat warmer

11

Thermal Results
Temperature around circumference of rotor contact face 320

315 Temperature (deg C)

310

305

300

295 Elem 45600 Elem 46938 Elem 47322 Elem 45822 Elem 46991 Elem 46213 Elem 45341

Standalone (RadTherm convection)

Reference temp (CFD convection)

cases Convection approach has significant impact on average 12

Small variation around rotor in both

Thermal Results (CFD convection)

13

Comparison of Convection Methods


Part average temperatures
320 Temperature around circumference of rotor contact face

340
315

320 Temperature (deg C)


310

Temperature (deg C)

300

280

305

260

300

240
295

220 775

825

875 Time (s)

925

975

290 Elem 45600 Elem 46938 Elem 47322 Elem 45822 Elem 46991 Elem 46213 Elem 45341

Rotor contact face (inboard) (standalone) Rotor contact face (inboard) (local CFD convection) Rotor contact face (inboard) (part-averaged CFD convection)

Standalone (RadTherm convection) Reference temp (CFD convection) Reference temp (part-averaged CFD convection)

similar to local convection results Variation around rotor face is slightly larger with local CFD but relatively small 14

Part-averaged CFD convection results

Comparison of Convection Methods: Average convection flux


Part convection fluxes very similar between local

CFD and part-average CFD


2000 0 Net convection flux (W/m^2) -2000 -4000

Part convection flux

Caliper (part-average CFD) Caliper (local CFD) Rotor (part-average CFD)

-6000 -8000 -10000 -12000 -14000 -16000 75 275 475 Time (s) 675 875 Rotor (local CFD) Rotor contact face (part-average CFD) Rotor contact face (local CFD)

15

Simulation performance comparison


CFD Runtime (12 processors) Thermal Runtime Total (1 processor)

Standalone (RadTherm convection)

2 hours

2 hours

Reference66 hours temperature CFD convection Fully coupled CFD convection (estimated) 175 hours

2 hours

68 hours (2.8 days)

14 hours

189 hours (7.9 days)

16

Coupling of results to FEA model


Temperature results from solid and shell

elements can be exported to FEA tools for structural analysis including heat loads / thermal stresses
Abaqus .odb file (RadTherm v11.0) Nastran file with temperatures at vertices (other

FEA codes)

Mesh similar to or same as thermal model

could be used

Mixed shell/solid hexa & tetra

17

Validation of standalone thermal model


Rotor Face

Rotor Edge

Hub Adapter Bearing Race


Sim Test Difference Sim Test Difference Sim Test Difference Sim Test Difference Average Average Peak (C) Trough (C) 736 631 716 648 20 -17 649 622 653 642 -4 -20 Final (C) 332 290 42 138 136 -2

TC1&3

TC 2

TC4

TC5

18

Conclusions
One-way reference-

temperature based CFD coupling shown to be effective at capturing detailed flow effects Efficiency is improved compared to full coupling, although lower than standalone model Choice of convection method and coupling approach will be dictated by needs of specific analysis
19

Вам также может понравиться