![]() |
Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
In 2008 I did some calculations for 1726 regarding the optimal precharged length of a pneumatic cylinder. As many teams are considering the same approach this year I figured it would be helpful to post the math here.
If you just want the answer see the bold portion of the post. Note: Precharging a cylinder refers to locking the piston of a pneumatic cylinder extended some distance d and then allowing the piston to fill with air before removing the latch. Warning: This process requires a little calculus! Variables: P: The pressure as the system kicks. P_int: The initial pressure. l: The position of the piston as the system kicks (ranges from d to L) L: The length of the cylinder d: The amount by which the piston is extended before the system is latched A: The cross sectional area of your cylinder. F: The force exerted by the cylinder as it expands W: The work done on the ball (This is what we want to maximize). The math: We assume the kick is an Isothermal process and that the amount of air entering the cylinder during the kick is negligible. so P_int*A*d=constant This implies that as the cylinder expands P=P_int*d/l (The cross sectional area cancels) The force exerted by the cylinder is given by P*A so F=P_int*A*d/l The total work done by the system on the soccer ball is given by integrating the force with respect to distance So W=P_int*A*d *the integral with respect to l of 1/l from d to L W=P_int*A*d*ln(L/d) where ln is the natural logarithm At this point anyone with a graphing calculator can find the maximum of the function (d=1/e*L), but it is much more fun to derive. dw/dd=P_int*A*(ln(L/d)-1) which is zero when ln(L/d)=1 which implies L/d=e so d=L/e~=.368*L Note we determine that this is a maxima using the first derivative sign test (or by realizing that if d=L the cylinder doesn't move so W=0 and if d=0 there is no air in the cylinder so W=0) In short a precharged cylinder will do the most work for you when the cylinder is latched at .368 or about one third of its total length. Remember that other design consideration may trump this optimization and that variables other than energy (such as size) may be more important to you. If you have any questions about the math feel free to ask. |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
~ |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
I love it when theory and practice come together. Our team (inspired by 1726's success with a pneumatic trackball launcher, and my traumatic memories of Thermodynamics 350, or whatever the course was) went the empirical route to determine an optimal "precharge" volume. We settled on 15" cylinders precharged to about 5".
Not to say that this was the result of exhaustive research, but we were pleased with the results. And that's within about 10% of the calculated value. Cool! Why didn't they let me do that on my exams? :-) Jason |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
Assuming you are using air tanks, the pressure will stay constant throughout the extension of the piston and as such, there would be no need to "pre-charge". This significantly decreases the size of the piston (by .368). However, the math is absolutely correct, and very insightful. If you do not plan on using air tanks for whatever reason, pre-charge your piston 1/3 of the way. |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
For this we have to introduce the new constant y the adiabatic index (note it's really supposed to be a gamma, but until CD offers support for Greek letters I'll take what I can get.) In air y=7/5 For an ideal adiabatic process P*V^y=constant which implies P=P_int*d^(7/5)/(l^(7/5)) As above A cancels so P=P_int*(d/l)^(7/5) Now as before F=P_int*A*(d/l)^(7/5) W=the integral over l of P_int*A*(d/l)^(7/5) from d to L or in a simplified notation W=P_int*A*d^(7/5)*the integral over l of l^(-7/5) from d to L which gives W=(5/2)*P_int*A*(d^(7/5))*(d^(-2/5)-l^(-2/5)) Because it is late the graphing calculator method shows that the energy output is maximized when d=.431*L. The true answer probably lies somewhere between the two answers. A note: The assumption that no additional air flows into the cylinder during the process probably isn't justified. This will lower the optimal precharged length because it slightly increases the pressure as the cylinder expands. A solution to the problem which takes this into account become exceedingly complicated very quickly (i.e. I don't think I can do it). If anyone would like to try it using Bernoulli's equation and a .32 cv I would love to see that worked out. |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
*the flow of water through a valve at 60 oF in US gallon/minute at a pressure drop of 1 lb/in^2 Definition taken from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fl...tor-d_238.html |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
I absolutely love this thread, thank you Matt! Gotta love theoretical computations which derive real world solutions, awesome application of fluids for students to comprehend. Great job!
|
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Please pardon my ignorance on this subject. What does it mean by precharging? Is it done so that the piston will kick out faster? How do you do it?
|
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
|
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
|
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
~ |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
Here are some conclusions I drew from the model: a) The Cv for the SMC and Festo are sized to keep a .75 in bore from flow limiting the valve most of the time. The larger bores push the valve into sonic conditions and limit the power to the cylinder. (I spoke of this in http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=80134) b) Precharging a .75 and 1.06 in bore cylinders actually degrades the performance. With a 0% and 40% stroke precharge the .75 in bore energy went from 9.7 to 6 ftlbs and the 1.06 in bore went from 12.5 to 10.1 ftlbs. c) Precarging the 1.5 in bore gave a peak near 40% stroke as expected and increased the energy output from 9.4 ftlbs to 14.2 ftlbs. d) Precharging the 2 in bore gave a peak of 18 ft lbs between 40 and 50%. Without the precharge, it was essentially unusable. I ran the cases under the following assumptions: Stroke: 6 in Pressure:60psig Cylinder load: near 50% of max force. (eg around 10 lbs for a .75 in bore) Two way adiabatic piston model: Exhaust chamber fights pressure chamber. System Cv = 50% of solenoid Cv to account for piping and fitting effects. Cv was same for input and exhaust ports. (I am a little uncomfortable with this since I suspect the exhaust port is not as restricted. If anyone has knowledge of this please chime in. I emailed SMC on this but haven't heard back). |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
(I assume by "energy" you are referring to the energy delivered into the load) ~ |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
I define Energy as the integral of net force on load*piston speed. If the valve is able to keep the pressure high then it pays to have a longer stroke since the force is higher. The gain in energy due to longer stroke outweighs the gain from precharging with a reduced stroke. Precharging makes use of potential energy which is limited by the %initial_stroke*area of piston. The input energy is negligible relative to the large area pistons. When the pistons get small enough, the input energy becomes significant and is like a power supply so you don't have to rely on potential energy to deliver the goods. In the limiting case.... if you had a huge valve or infinite flow to the cylinder, then the pressure drop would be negligible and the work done would be Psupply*Area*stroke which is the best the piston can deliver. |
Re: Optimizing Precharged Cylinders
Quote:
Quote:
~ |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:25. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi