Development of a Numerical Approach for the CFD Simulation of a Gear Pump under Actual Operating Conditions
Francesco Orlandi,Gabriele Muzzioli,Massimo Milani,Fabrizio Paltrinieri,Luca Montorsi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids8090244
2023-08-28
Fluids
Abstract:The geometric complexity and high-pressure gradients that characterize the design of the flow field of gear pumps make it very difficult to obtain an accurate CFD simulation of the component. Usually, assumptions are made both in terms of geometrical features and physics being included in the analysis. The contact between the teeth, which is a key factor for the correct functioning of these pumps, represents a critical challenge in 3D CFD simulations, mainly due to the intrinsic limits of the dynamic meshing techniques that can hardly effectively manage a zero or close to zero gap point forming during gear rotation. The geometric complexity and high-pressure gradients that characterize the gear pump flow field make a CFD analysis quite difficult, and the contact between the gear teeth is usually avoided, thus being an extremely important feature. In this paper, a gear pump composed of inlet and outlet pipes was considered, and the contact between the gear’s teeth was modeled in two different ways, one where it is effectively implemented and one where it is avoided using distancing and a proper casing modification. Herein, a new methodology is proposed for the application of the dynamic mesh method in the Simcenter STAR-CCM+ environment using an adaptive remeshing technique. The proposed methodology is compared with the alternative overset meshing method available in the software. The new meshing method is implemented using a user-routing that reproduces the real geometry of the gears while rotating during the pump operation, with teeth contact included. The routine is optimized in order to limit the additional computation and time needed for the remeshing process. The results that can be obtained using the two meshing approaches for the gear pump are compared in terms of computational effort and the accuracy of the results. The two methods showed opposite results in almost all the reported results, with the overset being more precise in the radial pressure evaluation and the dynamic being more reliable in the cavitation/aeration extension cloud.