Coupled Fluid-Structural-Thermal Simulations of Industrial Problems;

Requirements, Approaches and Examples - Keynote Lecture

by
Ashok K. Singhal, Vijayan Parthasarathy, John M. Siegel, Jr. and Alton Reich*
CFD Research Corporation, Huntsville, AL, USA
(aks@cfdrc.com) (256) 726-4800
*Proto-Power Corp, Groton, CT

ABSTRACT
The present paper describes some technical and business
considerations for the coupled (rather than sequential)
simulations of fluid flow, structural, and thermal phenomena
in industrial equipment. A Modular (object-oriented)
approach of performing coupled simulations is described.
The embodying software (MDICE: Multi-Disciplinary
Computing Environment) also allows the use of various
(interchangeable) engineering analysis codes on a
hetroseneous distributed computer environment. This
approach offers the highest levels of flexibility and
interoperability, and it has much greater potential than the
traditional approaches of developing monolithic codes or
developing common file formats for data exchange between
CFD and CSD codes.
Several common examples of thermal stresses at pipe
junctions, and the transient loads near closing positions of
gate and butterfly valves are presented to illustrate the
importance of coupled analyses. All simulations have been
+ global market.
performed by using commercial software, viz: CFD-ACE ,
CFD-FEMSTRESS, MSC/NASTRAN, and MDICE (Multi-
Disciplinary Computing Environment).
INTRODUCTION
Why Coupled Simulations?
However, the above approach has also fragmented the design
process. There has been evolution of "Specialist Groups"
specializing in individual disciplines e.g., CFD, CSD,
Controls, etc. Such polarization tends to add considerable
dependencies and delays in the design process. Thus the
designer has added a burden to guide and coordinate (and
hence manage) such groups; or to simply keep doing things
the old fashioned way (i.e., use simple analysis and
experiments). As a result, most organizations are making
only a limited use of advanced simulation capabilities.
In the broader context, there has been similar progress and
complexity in all aspects of business, e.g., Marketing, R&D,
Engineering, Manufacturing, Selling, and Servicing
industrial products. To rectify the situation, there have been
waves of new ideas and theories, e.g.: Concurrent
Engineering, Total Quality Management, and Integrated
Product Development Teams, etc. Most of the large
businesses have re-organized themselves to meet the
challenges of Rapid Product Development to complete in the
In light of the above, it is very desirable that the Engineering
Analysis practices are also modified to encompass several
inter-related disciplines, and to contribute to rapid design
and development goals.

A Business Reason A Technical Reason

In the last few decades, there has been significant progress in
the disciplines of Computational Structural Dynamics (CSD)
and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Several
commercial codes have evolved and facilitated the use of
simulations in a variety of industries. Various organizations
have created analysis departments for CSD, CFD and other
disciplines. Advanced simulations of fairly realistic
Engineering equipment is subjected to and responds to
various flow, heat transfer, and structural loads
simultaneously (rather than sequentially). Under transient
conditions, such simultaneity is even more dominant. In
many cases, the assumptions of "Quasi Steady State" are
simply well intended compromises under the constraints of
available software. In several applications, e.g., Tail
isolated (simplified of one-discipline) problems has little
value in the practical sense. The phenomena of Thermal
Cycling, etc. are equally likely to be as sensitive to the need
for coupled analysis. Likewise, for the designs with active-
controls, the need for coupled analysis is growing very
rapidly.
HOW TO PERFORM COUPLED SIMULATIONS?
Traditional approaches
There are three traditional approaches used to account for the
effects of fluid flow and structural/thermal deformation upon
engineering designs. The first approach is a CFD-centric
view of the problem. This viewpoint holds that CFD is the
most complex aspect of the coupled problem (due to
nonlinear phenomena), and therefore (simplified) structural
interaction capabilities should be integrated into the CFD
code to account for the effect of structural deformation. The
combination of fluids and structures within this CFD-centric
code can either be tightly or loosely coupled, from a physics
point of view (e.g. aspects of the structural deformation can
be actually integrated into the equations of fluid flow to
generate a tightly coupled capability).
A second approach to the coupled problem is a structural
mechanics-centered view. As with the CFD-centric
approach, the structural simulation is taken as the primary
driving force for the problem and a simplified model of the
fluid flow is typically added to the 'full function' structural
analysis code. Again, the combined solver can be either
tightly or loosely coupled, from a physics perspective.
A third traditional approach is to couple two 'full function'
simulation codes using a file-based approach. This approach
is usually initiated with a fluid flow solution, which is
written to a certain file format. Next, a file converter
program is written to read the fluid flow field and extract
forces into a file suitable for input into the chosen structural
solver. Finally, the structural solver is executed using the
given input file. If a coupled simulation is desired, an
additional file converter is written to extract the structural
deflections into a format suitable for deforming the fluids
mesh and then the process is repeated (due to the large
overhead associated with this process, this last step is rarely
performed). In this approach, simulations are always loosely
coupled, from a physics perspective.
Modern Modular Software Approach
given thermal and/or mechanical loads, will generate a
deformation field. The global framework, if designed
properly, will contain the necessary 'glue' to combine these
two modules into a coupled simulation. Typical
requirements for the framework include temporal
synchronization of modules (e.g. slaving each modules to a
given 'global' time) interpolation of mechanical stresses
from the flow solver to the structural solver, and
interpolation of structural deformations from the structural
solver to the flow solver.
Over the past several years, CFDRC has developed a Multi-
Disciplinary Computing Environment (MDICE) which
satisfies the requirements of this global framework to enable
coupled simulations using a modular approach. In addition
to the basic framework requirements cited above, MDICE
operates in a heterogeneous distributed computing
environment, so that each module can exist upon different
computers (or clusters of computers), thus allowing
maximum efficiency and flexibility in the execution of a
given simulation set.
The primary advantage of the modular approach is the ability
to select the appropriate 'global simulation framework' for a
given problem. For example, a particular aspect of an
engineering design might involve complex fluid flow with a
rather simplified structures, a second aspect of this same
design may require simplified fluid flow and complex
structures, while a third aspect of the design may be complex
in both disciplines.
Perhaps the design engineer would like to approach the
problem with a single CFD code and different structural
analysis codes, depending upon the complexity of the
structures. This is supported by the modular approach.
Perhaps the design engineer has determined that the problem
needs to be tightly coupled from a physics point of view, and
therefore the 'global simulation' would consist of a tightly
coupled code, whenever possible.
Again, this approach is supported. The bottom line is that
a modular software approach provides maximum
flexibility within the global simulation framework so that
the design engineer, rather than the software engineer,
can make the most appropriate selection of tools for a
given design problem.
SOME EXAMPLES
The current paper presents several examples of coupled
1. Thermal Pipe Penetration
A coupled CFD/stress analysis of thermal pipe penetration
Inflow
will be performed using CFD-ACE and FEMSTRESS. The
flow configuration comprises a large bore, heavy walled, hot
process pipe which has an operating fluid temperature of
about 500 F and average fluid velocity of about 10 ft./s. The Normal Position of Butterfly Valve
penetration is designed as a forged boss on the large bore
process pipe. The charging water penetrates the process
flow at temperatures less than 100 F and flow rates of about
30 gpm. The penetration also has a thermal sleeve, which is
welded to the boss, and it extends slightly into the main flow
stream. A sketch of the flow configuration is shown. The
computational analysis will study the thermal stresses on the ThrottledPositionofButterflyValve
large bore pipe, boss and the sleeve caused due to the mixing
of cooler fluid from the penetration into the main flow Figure 2. A CFD / Stress analysis of a butterfly valve closure process.
The analysis will involve simulation of flow around moving bodies using
stream. Chimera grids.
Water @ ~30 gpm, 70F

Branch Pipe 3. Closing Gate Valve

Heavy Wall Run Pipe
Thermal Sleeve
Water @ 12 Ft/s, 500F
Figure 1. Thermal stresses in the pipe section, penetration and thermal
sleeve as a result of injecting water into steam.
2. Closing Ball or Butterfly Valve
A coupled fluid-structure analysis of butterfly valve closure
process is performed for structural analysis. During the
valve closure, the flow passage in the pipe is partially
blocked and there are forces on the valve which are of
potential importance to the valve design. Despite the fact
that the butterfly valve is not designed for it, it is also used
sometimes to throttle. This analysis could also be used to
generate the K-factor for the valve. The simulations will be
performed using overset grid (Chimera) methodology. The
chimera methodology enables more effective simulation of
moving problems, especially for cases in which there are
large scale movements of the bodies, which commonly used
grid deformation techniques are incapable of handling. The
pipe and the valve will be modeled using separate meshes
overset on top of each other. In the coupled flow-structure
analysis of butterfly valve, the use of Chimera meshes
allows the valve to encounter its full range of motion, by
A coupled fluid-structural analysis will be performed to
analyze the flow past a closing gate valve. The stresses and
deflections in a gate valve while it is closing against the fluid
flow will be analyzed. The working fluid could be water or
steam. This problem is of great relevance to the issue of
thermal binding experienced by some gate valves used in the
nuclear industry. Some valves that are designed with tight
clearances close due to thermal growth experienced at
normal operating temperatures. The resulting interference
causes excessive valve wear when the valves close. A clear
understanding of elastic and thermal deformations of the
valve will help in improving the design process of such
valves. The Chimera grid approach proposed above will
again be employed for this simulation. In the closing
position, there is a small gap separating the pipe wall and the
valve. This configuration would usually entail remeshing all
the grid lines through this small gap, thus causing very high
grid skewness. The Chimera approach circumvents these
problems by using independent grids around the valve and in
the pipe.
Pressure Controlled Gate Valve
Inflow
COMPUTER SOFTWARE USED
All problems are simulated by using commercial software.
+ Siegel, J.M., Jr., Parthasarathy, Vijayan, Kingsley, G.M.,
The selected CFD code is CFD-ACE , and the structural
codes are CFD-FEMSTRESS and MSC/NASTRAN. CFD-
+
ACE is designed to accept and interchange data from
various other disciplines, e.g., CSD, Plasma,
Electromagnetism, Electrokinetics, Controls, etc. CFD-
+
FEMSTRESS can be used with CFD-ACE directly, as well
as via MDICE (Multi-disciplinary computing Environment)
+
software. CFD-ACE and MSC/NASTRAN are also used
via MDICE.
In the future, where desired, other codes, e.g., ANSYS or
Abaqeus can be used instead of FEMSTRESS or
NASTRAN.
RESULTS & ANALYSIS
Full details of simulations and associated findings will
be presented in the the full paper, at the time of PVP
Conference on August 2-5, 1999.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Conference Organizers,
Dr. Vladimir Kudriavtsev and Mr. Robert Sammataro, for
their suggestions and Ms. Mary Cummins for the preparation
of this typescript.
REFERENCES
Dionne, P.J., Harrand, V.J. (CFD Research Corp.), and
Luker, J.J., Sept. 1998 (Wright-Patterson AF) “Application
of a Multi-Disciplinary Computing Environment (MDICE)
for Loosely Coupled Fluid-Structural Analysis", Paper #
AIAA 98-4865, 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium of MDO.
Sheta, E.F., Siegel, J.M., Jr., Golos, F.N., Harrand, V.J.,
June 22-25, 1999, “Twin-Tail Buffet Simulation Using a
Multi-Multi-Disciplinary Computing Environment
(MDICE)" CEAS/AIAA/ICASE/NASA Langley, Int'l
Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics,
Williamsburg, VA,
Krishnan, A., Yang, H., Bayyuk, S., Mazumder, S.,
Lowry, S., Przekwas, A., and Nguyen, L., "Time-
Accurate, 3-D Computation of Wiresweep During
Plastic Encapsulation of Electronic Components, with
Non-Newtonian Viscosity and Curing Chemistry, Paper
#ASME, PVP-Vol. 377-1, pp. 175-185, San Diego, CA,
July 1998