Benchmarking of two flexible multibody dynamic simulation software in engine simulations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.69961Keywords:
Multibody System, Wärtsilä, Software Benchmarking, MBS Software Comparison, Reciprocating Engine SimulationAbstract
In this paper, two different commercial multibody dynamic (MBD) simulation software cases are studied. Due to the restrictions determined in the conditions of contract, the names of the software are not revealed, instead being called Software S and Software E. The central purpose of this research was to investigate the abilities of Software S in the simulation of a large engine, as a part of the strength analysis process. The abilities were studied by comparing the program with another, here called Software E, which is designed primarily for engine simulations. The capabilities of Software E have been proven after years of usage at Wärtsilä, resulting in its essential role in the strength analysis process today. The aim was to find the shortcomings and restrictions of Software S but also advantages it could bring to the strength analysis process for Wärtsilä. Similar simulation models were also built using both programs during this research. A 16-cylinder V-engine was selected as the subject because of its size in order to obtain further information about the behavior of the program when working with extensive model files. The components of the engine were flexible and were reduced FE models, also called super elements. The forces and contact situations that occur inside the engine were modeled using elements provided by the MBD programs. Different levels of detail of the modeling elements were used to obtain information about the flexibility of the program. The results obtained from time integrations were compared to ensure the similarity of both modeling elements used. Also, this paper reports the calculation times. In addition, a small-scale study was performed for Software S to clarify the effect of the modes used in time integrations towards results accuracy and calculation times. Simulation models were built successfully in both programs, and the results obtained correlated with each other on an adequate level. Significant differences appeared in the features and usability of the programs in general. The GUI of Software S is advanced and user-friendly, whereas Software E is not focused on these features. On the other hand, the modeling element library of Software E covers all of the required features related to large engine simulations, some of which Software S is lacking. This work can be used in assistance when considering buying new software for a company as well as when investigating new development areas that could be improved with new software.
References
Claes Wohlin, Aybuke Aurum, Håkan Petersson, Forrest Shull, and Marcus Ciolkowski. Software inspection benchmarking - a qualitative and quantitative comparative opportunity. IEEE, 2002.
Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, 2014. URL: https://books.google.fi/books?id=hZ6kBQAAQBAJ.
Ahmed Shabana. Dynamics of multibody systems. Cambridge University press, 1998.
Tero Frondelius, Hannu Tienhaara, and Mauri Haataja. History of structural analysis & dynamics of Wärtsilä medium speed engines. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 51(2):131,2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.69735.
Antti Mäntylä, Jussi Göös, Anton Leppänen, and Tero Frondelius. Large bore engine connecting rod fretting analysis. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):239243, 2017. URL:https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64914.
Tero Frondelius, Pasi Halla-aho, and Antti Mäntylä. Crankshaft development with virtual engine modelling. In CIMAC Congress Helsinki, 2016.
Jussi Göös, Anton Leppänen, Antti Mäntylä, and Tero Frondelius. Large bore connecting rod simulations. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):275278, 2017. URL:https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64658.
Ilkka Väisänen, Antti Mäntylä, Antti Korpela, Teemu Kuivaniemi, and Tero Frondelius. Medium speed engine crankshaft analysis. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):341344, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64916.
Johannes Heilala, Teemu Kuivaniemi, Juho Könnö, and Tero Frondelius. Concept calculation tool for dynamics of generator set common baseframe. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):353356, 2017. URL:https://rakenteidenmekaniikka.journal.fi/article/view/64925.
Johannes Törn. A methodology study of 4-stroke engine dynamics. Master's thesis, University of Oulu, 2017. URL: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201706012295.
Juho Könnö, Hannu Tienhaara, and Tero Frondelius. Wärtsilä digital design platform. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):234238, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64621.
Mikael Nyberg, Antti Mäntylä, and Tero Frondelius. Explosion simulation of pressurized components. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):198200, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.65076.
Anton Leppänen, Asko Kumpula, Joona Vaara, Massimo Cattarinussi, Juho Könnö, and Tero Frondelius. Thermomechanical fatigue analysis of cylinder head. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):182185, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64743.
Roy Craig Jr and Mervyn Bampton. Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA Journal, 6(7):13141319, 1968. URL: https://doi.org/10.2514/3.4741.
Dassault Systémes, 2014. Abaqus 6.14 Documentation: Abaqus Analysis: Theory Guide.
Zu-Qing Qu. Model order Reduction techniques. Springer-Verlag London, 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3827-3.
Marja Rapo, Jukka Aho, Hannu Koivurova, and Tero Frondelius. Implementing model reduction to the JuliaFEM platform. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 51(1):3654, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.69026.
AVL. EXCITE Power Unit v2016: Documentation: Theory part, 2016.
Juho Könnö, Tero Frondelius, Thomas Resch, and Maria Jose Santos-Descalzo. Simulation based grid compliance. In CIMAC Congress Helsinki, 2016.
DS Simulia, 2018. Simpack 2018. Documentation.
Teemu Kuivaniemi, Antti Mäntylä, Ilkka Väisänen, Antti Korpela, and Tero Frondelius. Dynamic gear wheel simulations using multi body dynamics. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):287291, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64944.
Klaus Mollenhauer. Handbuch Diesel Motoren. Springer-Verlag, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07711-5.
Liang Bai, Teemu Kuivaniemi, Pasi Halla-aho, and Tero Frondelius. Elasto hydrodynamic simulation of the slider bearing. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):283286, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64922.
Antti Valkonen. Oil lm pressure in hydrodynamic journal bearings. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2009. URL: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN: 978-952-248-162-7.
Gwidon Stachowiak and Andrew Batchelor. Engineering Tribology. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397047-3.00004-7.
Mujammil Choudhari. Optimization of addendum modication for bending strength of involute spur gear. International Engineering Research Journal, pages 10931097, 2010. URL: http://www.ierjournal.org/pupload/mitpgcon/1093--1097.pdf.
Jonne Haapakoski. Medium-speed four-stroke diesel engine cylinder pressure effect on component dimensioning. Master's thesis, University of Oulu, 2016. URL: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201612023172.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Terho Tuohineva, Ilkka Väisänen, Antti Mäntylä, Teemu Kuivaniemi, Mauri Haataja, Tero Frondelius, terofrondelius
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
