Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 1001–1015 | Cite as

Coupled operational optimization of smart valve system subject to different approach angles of a pipe contraction

  • Peiman NaseradinmousaviEmail author
  • Sahar Ghanipoor Machiani
  • Mohammad A. Ayoubi
  • C. Nataraj
RESEARCH PAPER

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on interconnected trajectory optimization of two sets of solenoid actuated butterfly valves dynamically coupled in series. The system undergoes different approach angles of a pipe contraction as a typical profile of the so-called “Smart Valves” network containing tens of actuated valves. A high fidelity interconnected mathematical modeling process is derived to reveal the expected complexity of such a multiphysics system dealing with electromagnetics, fluid mechanics, and nonlinear dynamic effects. A coupled operational optimization scheme is formulated in order to seek the most efficient trajectories of the interconnected valves minimizing the energy consumed enforcing stability and physical constraints. We examine various global optimization methods including Particle Swarm, Simulated Annealing, Genetic, and Gradient based algorithms to avoid being trapped in several possible local minima. The effect of the approach angles of the pipeline contraction on the amount of energy saved is discussed in detail. The results indicate that a substantial amount of energy can be saved by an intelligent operation that uses flow torques to augment the closing efforts.

Keywords

Coupled operational optimization Smart actuated valve Interconnected modeling Pipe contraction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The experimental work of this research was supported by Office of Naval Research Grant (N00014/2008/1/0435). We appreciate this grant and the advice and direction provided by Mr. Anthony Seman III, the program manager.

References

  1. Baek-Ju S, Eun-Woong L (2005) Optimal design and speed increasing method of solenoid actuator using a non-magnetic ring. In: International conference on power electronics and drives systems, pp 1140–1145Google Scholar
  2. Bennett C O, Myers J E (1962) Momentum, heat, and mass transfer. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerny V (1985) Thermodynamical approach to the traveling salesman problem: an efficient simulation algorithm. J Optim Theory Appl 45(1):41–55. doi: 10.1007/BF00940812 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chakraborty I, Trawick D R, Jackson D, Mavris D (2013) Electric control surface actuator design optimization and allocation for the more electric aircraft. In: 2013 aviation technology, integration, and operations conferenceGoogle Scholar
  5. Elka A, Bucher I (2009) Optimal electrode shaping for precise modal electromechanical filtering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 38(6):627–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grierson D E, Pak W H (1993) Optimal sizing, geometrical and topological design using a genetic algorithm. Structural Optimization 6(3):151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holland HJ (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Hughes R, Balestrini S, Kelly K, Weston N, Mavris D (2006) Modeling of an integrated reconfigurable intelligent system (IRIS) for ship design. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ASNE ship and ship systems technology (S3T) symposiumGoogle Scholar
  9. Kajima T (1995) Dynamic model of the plunger type solenoids at deenergizing state. IEEE Trans Magn 31 (3):2315–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Karr CL, Scott DA (2003) Genetic algorithm frequency domain optimization of an anti-resonant electromechanical controller. Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelley C T (1999) Iterative methods for optimization. Front Appl Math 18Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  13. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt C D, Vecchi M P (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220 (4598):671–680. doi: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671  10.1126/science.220.4598.671 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Klimovich V I (1997) On the optimal design of the form of hydroturbine impeller blades. Struct Multidiscip Optim 13(1):29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee K, Ortiz J L, Mohtadi M A, Park Y M (1988) Optimal operation of large-scale power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 3(2):413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lequesne B, Henry R, Kamal M (1998) Magnavalve: a new solenoid configuration based on a spring-mass oscillatory system for engine valve actuation. GM Research Report E3-89Google Scholar
  17. Leutwyler Z, Dalton C (2008) A CFD study of the flow field, resultant force, and aerodynamic torque on a symmetric disk butterfly valve in a compressible fluid. J Press Vessel Technol 130(2):021302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahdi S A (2014) Optimization of pid controller parameters based on genetic algorithm for non-linear electromechanical actuator. Int J Comput Appl 94:11–20Google Scholar
  19. Massey B S, Ward-Smith J (1998) Mechanics of fluids, 7th edn. Taylor & Francis, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Messine F, Nogarede B, Lagouanelle JL (1998) Optimal design of electromechanical actuators: a new method based on global optimization. IEEE Trans Magn 34(1):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mezyk A (1994) Minimization of transient forces in an electro-mechanical system. Struct Multidiscip Optim 8(4):251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naseradinmousavi P (2012) Nonlinear modeling, dynamic analysis, and optimal design and operation of electromechanical valve systems. PhD thesis, Villanova UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Naseradinmousavi P (2015) A novel nonlinear modeling and dynamic analysis of solenoid actuated butterfly valves coupled in series. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 137(1):014505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Naseradinmousavi P, Nataraj C (2011a) A chaotic blue sky catastrophe of butterfly valves driven by solenoid actuators. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011 international mechanical engineering congress & exposition, IMECE2011/62608Google Scholar
  25. Naseradinmousavi P, Nataraj C (2011b) Nonlinear mathematical modeling of butterfly valves driven by solenoid actuators. J Appl Math Model 35(5):2324–2335Google Scholar
  26. Naseradinmousavi P, Nataraj C (2012) Transient chaos and crisis phenomena in butterfly valves driven by solenoid actuators. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 17(11):4336–4345MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Naseradinmousavi P, Nataraj C (2013) Optimal design of solenoid actuators driving butterfly valves. ASME J Mech Des 135(9):094501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naseradinmousavi P, Nataraj C (2015) Design optimization of solenoid actuated butterfly valves dynamically coupled in series. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 dynamic systems and control conference, vol 2: diagnostics and detection; drilling; dynamics and control of wind energy systems; energy harvesting; estimation and identification; flexible and smart structure control; fuels cells/energy storage; human robot interaction; hvac building energy management; industrial applications; intelligent transportation systems; manufacturing; mechatronics; modelling and validation; motion and vibration control applications, p V002T33A001Google Scholar
  29. Naseradinmousavi P, Krstic M, Nataraj C (2016) Design optimization of dynamically coupled actuated butterfly valves subject to a sudden contraction. ASME J Mech Des 138(4):041402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowak L (2010) Optimization of the electromechanical systems on the basis of coupled field-circuit approach. Int J Comput Math Electr Electron Eng 20(1):39–52MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Park J Y, Chung M K (2006) Study on hydrodynamic torque of a butterfly valve. J Fluids Eng 128 (1):190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raulli M, Maute K (2005) Topology optimization of electrostatically actuated microsystems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 30(5):342– 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sefkat G (2009) The design optimization of the electromechanical actuator. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37 (6):635–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shi Y, Eberhart RC (1998) A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, pp 69–73Google Scholar
  35. Sung BJ, Lee EW, Kim HE (2002) Development of design program for on and off type solenoid actuator. In: Proceedings of the KIEE summer annual conference, vol B, pp 929–931Google Scholar
  36. Yu H, Li G, Zhu F, Gui Q, Li R (2007) Research on optimal operation in large-scale steam piping system. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Hangzhou and New York, chap Challenges of Power Engineering and Environment, pp 593–596Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peiman Naseradinmousavi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sahar Ghanipoor Machiani
    • 2
  • Mohammad A. Ayoubi
    • 3
  • C. Nataraj
    • 4
  1. 1.Dynamic Systems and Control Laboratory, Department of Mechanical EngineeringSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental EngineeringSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA
  4. 4.The Villanova Center for Analytics of Dynamic Systems (VCADS)Villanova UniversityVillanovaUSA

Personalised recommendations