Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench Hua Wang, Li Jun Zeng TRW...
Transcript of Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench Hua Wang, Li Jun Zeng TRW...
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench
Hua Wang, Li Jun ZengTRW Automotive
Content• Introduction
• Materials Model– Stress / Strain nonlinearity
– Thermal expansion
• Analyses and Results– Axial symmetric 2D O‐ring seal evaluation
– 3D seal groove evaluation
• Summary and limitation
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench 2Oct. 30, 2012
Introduction
• TRW was first‐to‐market in 2001 with its Electric Park Brake (EPB) on a mass production vehicle. Today, there are more than 15million TRW EPB calipers on road worldwide.
• Comparing to traditional mechanical parking brake, EPB reduces drag and saves weight, allows for greater freedom of vehicle interior design and packaging, enhances vehicle safety and driver comfort.
Oct. 30, 2012 Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench 3
http://trw.com/braking_systems/electric_park_brakehttp://trw.com/braking_systems/electric_park_brakehttp://trw.com/braking_systems/electric_park_brake
Introduction
• Robust sealing of electric motor case is critical for EPB application in different environments. Improper sealing may allow moisture into the actuator case chamber, which can cause corrosion and lead to other function failures.
• The EPB actuator case under study is made from fiber filled plastic, which is bolted on to a foundation housing made of aluminum. The O‐ring rubber seal is in‐between the plastic case and aluminum base.
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench 4
CAE Livonia
Oct. 30, 2012
Plastic
Rubber
Aluminum
Introduction
• To evaluate whether the actuator case to foundation housing interface has a robust seal, CAE analyses were conducted using ANSYS Workbench:
– Include thermal and mechanic non‐linear material properties of rubber, plastics, and aluminum.
– 2D axial‐symmetric model for rubber seal evaluation.
– 3D model for seal groove deformation evaluation.
– Two different Electric Parking Brake (EPB) systems were evaluated• Design A – baseline
• Design B – new design
5
CAE Livonia
5Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBenchOct. 30, 2012
Material Model• Plastic (Actuator Case)
– PPS 40% GF (Baseline Design A)
– PBT 30% GF (Design B)
• Both PPS & PBT have stress strain curves corresponding to different temperatures.
• Parallel thermal expansion:– PPS 40% GF: Coefficient of linear thermal
expansion (Parallel): 2.6E‐05/°C– PBT 30% GF: Coefficient of linear thermal
expansion (Parallel): 2.5E‐05/°C• Transverse thermal expansion:
– Unknown
Notes:PBT (Polybutylene terephthalate)PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide)GF Glass Fiber
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench 6
PPS 40% GF
PBT 30% GF
Oct. 30, 2012
Material Model
• Cast Aluminum (Foundation) – Nonlinear stress‐strain curve
– Coefficient of linear thermal expansion: 2.35E‐05/°C
• Hyperelastic (O‐ring)– Ogden 2nd order model
– Coefficient of linear thermal expansion: 8.5E‐05/°C
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench 7Oct. 30, 2012
2D Axial Symmetry Model
8Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench
Design A Design B
Oct. 30, 2012
• 5‐Step Analyses:
1) O‐ring installation (stretch) (Ref. temperature: 22°C)
2) Actuator installation (squeeze) (Ref. temperature: 22°C)
3) Temperature drops to: ‐30°C
4) Temperature rises to: 23°C
5) Temperature rises to: 150°C
2D – Axial Symmetry ModelDesign A (Baseline)
9Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBenchOct. 30, 2012
10Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBenchOct. 30, 2012
2D – Axial Symmetry ModelDesign B (New Design)
Design A and Design B / Contact Pressure
11Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench
Outside
Inside
Bottom
22°C
‐30°C
23°C
150°C
Oct. 30, 2012
Design A and Design B / Contact Force
12
Outside
Inside
Bottom
22°C
‐30°C
23°C
150°C
12Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBenchOct. 30, 2012
Effects of Friction
1313Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBenchOct. 30, 2012
Friction Coefficient: 0.15 Friction Coefficient: 0.01
Summary
14Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench
• The o‐ring seals three surfaces in groove: inner, outer and bottom interface between actuator and caliper.
• The seal pressure and contact force change with temperature; it decreases as temperature drops, and increases as temperature rises.
• The Design B has better sealing than baseline, as it showed higher seal pressure (bottom side) or high contact force (inside and outside).
• The bottom interface seal pressure still holds as friction diminishes.
Oct. 30, 2012
3D Model ‐ Seal Groove Deformation
15Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench
• 4‐Step Analyses:
1) Apply bolt pretension (Ref. temperature: 22°C)
2) Temperature drops to: ‐30°C
3) Temperature rises to: 23°C
4) Temperature rises to: 150°C
Design A Design B
Oct. 30, 2012
Dimension of Groove Height
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [16]
Path location in Caliper 2.55 mm
Groove Height
Design A
Path location in Actuator
2.55 mmGroove Height
Path location in Caliper
Path location in Actuator Design B
• The dimension change of groove height is evaluated along two perimeters.• Path of actuator location
• Path of caliper location
Oct. 30, 2012
Change of Groove Height (µm) / Lower Temperature
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [17]
Bolt 1
0°
180°
90°
270°
Bolt 2
Design BDesign A
0°
Bolt 1180°
Bolt 2270°
90°
Oct. 30, 2012
Change of Groove Height (µm) / High Temperature
[18]
position ‐ A
position ‐ B
position ‐ A
position ‐ B
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench
Design A
0°
Bolt 1180°
Bolt 2270°
90°
Bolt 1
0°
180°
90°
270°
Bolt 2
Oct. 30, 2012
Design A / Groove Path / Actuator Radial Def. (µm)
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [19]
Bolt 2Bolt 1
0°
Bolt 1
180°
Bolt 2270°
90°
Oct. 30, 2012
Design A / Groove Path / Caliper Radial Def. (µm)
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [20]
Bolt 2
0°
Bolt 1
180°
Bolt 2270°
90°
Oct. 30, 2012
Design B / Groove Path / Actuator Radial Def. (µm)
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [21]
Bolt 1Bolt 2
Bolt 1
0°
180°
90°270°
Bolt 2
Oct. 30, 2012
Design B / Groove Path / Caliper Radial Def. (µm)
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [22]
Bolt 2
Bolt 1
0°
180°
90°270°
Bolt 2
Oct. 30, 2012
Summary • The seal groove deformation is within 40μm over the temperature range for both designs: – Maximum groove height change of design A: ‐16 µm at ‐30°C, 38 µm at 150°C
– Maximum groove height change of design B: 20 µm at ‐30°C, 14 µm at 150°C
• When temperature drops, Design A shows decreased groove height.
• When temperature rises, Design B shows less groove height expansion.
• Design B seal groove height deforms more uniformly comparing to the baseline design.
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [23]Oct. 30, 2012
Conclusion / Limitation• Using ANSYS Workbench, seal evaluation was performed on two different EPB designs:
– 2D axial‐symmetric model for rubber seal evaluation.– 3D model for seal groove deformation evaluation.
• Design B shows better sealing behave Overall.– Higher sealing pressure/force.– Less groove deformation at high temperatures.
• Plastic material with fiber filler has different thermal expansion in parallel and normal direction. Normal direction generally has higher thermal expansion than parallel direction. Only parallel direction is taken into account during this analysis.
Seal Evaluation Using ANSYS WorkBench [24]Oct. 30, 2012