Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design

Autores
Adil, H.; Gerguri, S.; Durodola, J.; Fellows, N.; Bonatesta, F.; Audebert, Fernando Enrique
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The exposure of pistons to extreme mechanical and thermal loads in modern combustion engines has necessitated the use of efficient and detailed analysis methods to facilitate their design. The finite element analysis has become a standard design optimisation tool for this purpose. In literature two different approaches have been suggested for reducing the geometry of the cylinder and crank slider mechanism,to idealise piston finite element analysis load models,whilst trying to maintain realistic boundaries to obtain accurate results. The most widely used geometry is the combination of piston and gudgeon pin while the second geometry includes some portion of the connecting rod?s small end and cylinder in addition to the piston and gudgeon pin.No clear analyses have been made in literature about the relative effectiveness of the two approaches in terms of model accuracy. In this work both approaches have been carried out and analysed with respect to a racing piston. The results suggest that the latter approach is more representative of the load conditions that the piston is subjected to in reality.
Fil: Adil, H.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Gerguri, S.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Durodola, J.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Fellows, N.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Bonatesta, F.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Audebert, Fernando Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Tecnologías y Ciencias de la Ingeniería "Hilario Fernández Long". Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ingeniería. Instituto de Tecnologías y Ciencias de la Ingeniería "Hilario Fernández Long"; Argentina. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Materia
Finite Element Analysis
Piston
Stress
Ansys
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/121109
Acceder
id CONICETDig_ceba2cd9866eb29a7b4c94fb5a3a5ad4
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/121109
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston DesignAdil, H.Gerguri, S.Durodola, J.Fellows, N.Bonatesta, F.Audebert, Fernando EnriqueFinite Element AnalysisPistonStressAnsyshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2The exposure of pistons to extreme mechanical and thermal loads in modern combustion engines has necessitated the use of efficient and detailed analysis methods to facilitate their design. The finite element analysis has become a standard design optimisation tool for this purpose. In literature two different approaches have been suggested for reducing the geometry of the cylinder and crank slider mechanism,to idealise piston finite element analysis load models,whilst trying to maintain realistic boundaries to obtain accurate results. The most widely used geometry is the combination of piston and gudgeon pin while the second geometry includes some portion of the connecting rod?s small end and cylinder in addition to the piston and gudgeon pin.No clear analyses have been made in literature about the relative effectiveness of the two approaches in terms of model accuracy. In this work both approaches have been carried out and analysed with respect to a racing piston. The results suggest that the latter approach is more representative of the load conditions that the piston is subjected to in reality.Fil: Adil, H.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino UnidoFil: Gerguri, S.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino UnidoFil: Durodola, J.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino UnidoFil: Fellows, N.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino UnidoFil: Bonatesta, F.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino UnidoFil: Audebert, Fernando Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Tecnologías y Ciencias de la Ingeniería "Hilario Fernández Long". Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ingeniería. Instituto de Tecnologías y Ciencias de la Ingeniería "Hilario Fernández Long"; Argentina. Oxford Brookes University; Reino UnidoIJERA2019-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/121109Adil, H.; Gerguri, S.; Durodola, J.; Fellows, N.; Bonatesta, F.; et al.; Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design; IJERA; International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications; 9; 3-2019; 23-372248-9622CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/46999870-5757-4aa6-899a-06650461d349/1/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:51:55Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/121109instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:51:55.723CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
title Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
spellingShingle Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
Adil, H.
Finite Element Analysis
Piston
Stress
Ansys
title_short Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
title_full Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
title_fullStr Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
title_sort Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Adil, H.
Gerguri, S.
Durodola, J.
Fellows, N.
Bonatesta, F.
Audebert, Fernando Enrique
author Adil, H.
author_facet Adil, H.
Gerguri, S.
Durodola, J.
Fellows, N.
Bonatesta, F.
Audebert, Fernando Enrique
author_role author
author2 Gerguri, S.
Durodola, J.
Fellows, N.
Bonatesta, F.
Audebert, Fernando Enrique
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Finite Element Analysis
Piston
Stress
Ansys
topic Finite Element Analysis
Piston
Stress
Ansys
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The exposure of pistons to extreme mechanical and thermal loads in modern combustion engines has necessitated the use of efficient and detailed analysis methods to facilitate their design. The finite element analysis has become a standard design optimisation tool for this purpose. In literature two different approaches have been suggested for reducing the geometry of the cylinder and crank slider mechanism,to idealise piston finite element analysis load models,whilst trying to maintain realistic boundaries to obtain accurate results. The most widely used geometry is the combination of piston and gudgeon pin while the second geometry includes some portion of the connecting rod?s small end and cylinder in addition to the piston and gudgeon pin.No clear analyses have been made in literature about the relative effectiveness of the two approaches in terms of model accuracy. In this work both approaches have been carried out and analysed with respect to a racing piston. The results suggest that the latter approach is more representative of the load conditions that the piston is subjected to in reality.
Fil: Adil, H.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Gerguri, S.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Durodola, J.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Fellows, N.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Bonatesta, F.. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
Fil: Audebert, Fernando Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Tecnologías y Ciencias de la Ingeniería "Hilario Fernández Long". Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ingeniería. Instituto de Tecnologías y Ciencias de la Ingeniería "Hilario Fernández Long"; Argentina. Oxford Brookes University; Reino Unido
description The exposure of pistons to extreme mechanical and thermal loads in modern combustion engines has necessitated the use of efficient and detailed analysis methods to facilitate their design. The finite element analysis has become a standard design optimisation tool for this purpose. In literature two different approaches have been suggested for reducing the geometry of the cylinder and crank slider mechanism,to idealise piston finite element analysis load models,whilst trying to maintain realistic boundaries to obtain accurate results. The most widely used geometry is the combination of piston and gudgeon pin while the second geometry includes some portion of the connecting rod?s small end and cylinder in addition to the piston and gudgeon pin.No clear analyses have been made in literature about the relative effectiveness of the two approaches in terms of model accuracy. In this work both approaches have been carried out and analysed with respect to a racing piston. The results suggest that the latter approach is more representative of the load conditions that the piston is subjected to in reality.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-03
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/121109
Adil, H.; Gerguri, S.; Durodola, J.; Fellows, N.; Bonatesta, F.; et al.; Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design; IJERA; International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications; 9; 3-2019; 23-37
2248-9622
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/121109
identifier_str_mv Adil, H.; Gerguri, S.; Durodola, J.; Fellows, N.; Bonatesta, F.; et al.; Comparative Study and Evaluation of Two Different Finite Element Models for Piston Design; IJERA; International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications; 9; 3-2019; 23-37
2248-9622
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/46999870-5757-4aa6-899a-06650461d349/1/
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv IJERA
publisher.none.fl_str_mv IJERA
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613594815135744
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares