energies

Article
Analysis of the Design of a Poppet Valve by
Transitory Simulation
Ivan Gomez 1 , Andrés Gonzalez-Mancera 1 , Brittany Newell 2 and Jose Garcia-Bravo 2, *
1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota 111711, Colombia;
id.gomez65@uniandes.edu.co (I.G.); angonzal@uniandes.edu.co (A.G.-M.)
2 School of Engineering Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette 47907, IN, USA; bnewell1@purdue.edu
* Correspondence: jmgarcia@purdue.edu; Tel.: +1-765-494-7312




Received: 10 February 2019; Accepted: 2 March 2019; Published: 7 March 2019


Abstract: This article contains the results and analysis of the dynamic behavior of a poppet valve
through CFD simulation. A computational model based on the finite volume method was developed
to characterize the flow at the interior of the valve while it is moving. The model was validated using
published data from the valve manufacturer. This data was in accordance with the experimental
model. The model was used to predict the behavior of the device as it is operated at high frequencies.
Non-dimensional parameters for generalizing and analyzing the effects of the properties of the fluid
were used. It was found that it is possible to enhance the dynamic behavior of the valve by altering
the viscosity of the working fluid. Finally, using the generated model, the influence of the angle of the
poppet was analyzed. It was found that angle has a minimal effect on pressure. However, flow forces
increase as angle decreases. Therefore, reducing poppet angle is undesirable because it increases
power requirements for valve actuation.

Keywords: poppet valve geometry; CFD valve simulation; valve optimization

1. Introduction
An Electro hydraulic Servo Valve (EHSV) is a directional valve capable of accurately and
proportionally metering flow based on a given input. These valves have been used extensively
in aerospace applications since the 1950s particularly for flight control surfaces and other secondary
functions. Other typical applications include power steering actuators and in electronically controlled
industrial applications [1]. These valves are favored because they can be used to implement excellent
feedback control systems while operating with relatively low power.
In recent years model based diagnostics and prevention has been investigated to improve the
reliability of Electro-hydraulic, Electro-mechanical and Electro-pneumatic systems [2–7]. In typical
EHSV’s the radial clearance between the spool and the sleeve in the valves is in the order of 5 µm or
0.2 thousand of an inch [8]. This tight gap tends to break the fluid and form sticky films increasing
viscous friction and eventually creating spool stiction. Finally, from a hydraulics perspective, systems
operating with EHSV tend to be inherently energy inefficient because they restrict the flow passing
from the supply port to the work port through metered orifices. This restriction creates a pressure
drop that is converted into heat [9,10]. The heated fluid can vaporize at low pressure, increasing the
possibility of cavitation in standard applications.
Possible solutions to replace the traditional 4/3 directional controlled valve used in hydraulic
systems to control the motion of an actuator include: (1) Displacement control actuation [11,12],
(2) independent metering control [13,14], and (3) digital hydraulics [15–18]. Each of these solutions has
its own strengths and weaknesses. While the first approach is great for controllability, stability, and
efficiency, its implementation is costly because it requires a single pump for each actuator. Solution

Energies 2019, 12, 889; doi:10.3390/en12050889 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 889 2 of 18

(2), improves energy efficiency significantly but still uses valves with spools that are also sensitive
to contamination. Solution (3) uses poppet on-off valves (valves with only two positions), which are
resilient against contamination, are relatively inexpensive and easy to operate. However, on-off poppet
valves lack the speed of EHSV and the implementation of control strategies to achieve closed loop
control of an actuator can be challenging. Solenoid operated poppet valves have been implemented
in a great variety of applications. Thanks to their low cost and simple operation, these valves have
replaced other technologies. For instance, the use of poppet style valves has been introduced in the
automotive market replacing traditional cam-lever designs for controlling intake and exhaust in diesel
engines [19]. Multiple solenoid poppet valves can be connected in parallel to construct a digital flow
control unit (DFCU) to replicate the operation of an EHSV, with similar or better flow capacities and
in theory better controllability, optimized energy consumption and significantly lower cost. With the
purpose of replacing an EHSV for a group of DFCU’s, various researchers have focused on improving
the resolution and controllability of an optimized number of valves [20]. One such control method is
the implementation of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) for controlling the flow using independent
valves [21]. However, the typical high non-linearity of flow through an orifice in any valve still remains
a great challenge. It has been proposed that a main issue of these non-linearities is their effect on
response time of the valve being far greater than the control signal [22]. In other words, to improve the
controllability issues due to non-linearities, it is necessary to increase the speed of the DFCU to obtain
a comparable behavior to an EHSV. For poppet valves, the response time is always tied to the fluid
flow forces, the slower the response time of the valve, the larger the flow forces acting on the poppet.
One possible alternative to overcome these flow forces is to improve the electromagnetic properties of
the solenoid operating the poppet valve. Some researchers have used solenoids with metal alloys like
Al-Fe [19], Ti [20] or have resorted to the use of magneto-rheological fluids [23], with response times
between 0.16 to 0.45 ms, 7–10 ms and 0.1–100 ms, respectively.
Another parameter of interest for improving the response time of a DFCU is the geometry of
the poppet and the seat. Studies have focused on decreasing the flow forces through empirical
and computational analysis to evaluate the effect of angle on spool valves. Flow forces seen in
these studies were reduced by approximately 36% [24]. Others have optimized rotary spool valves
using genetic algorithms, where the energetic performance of the valve was improved by up to a
97% [25]. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is generally used for modeling and approximating
the Navier-Stokes Equations to characterize flow through a valve. CFD analysis performed on poppet
valves has been used to predict the behavior of these valves with relative errors below 8% [26,27].
Nevertheless, it is important to note that is has also been demonstrated that errors are related to many
factors, such as geometry and that some configurations are more challenging for the mathematical
models [28]. It is for this reason it is important to perform careful mesh sensitivity analysis to assess
the performance of the model. The goal of this study was to characterize the behavior of a commercial
poppet valve in transient state using CFD, and to focus on its response at high frequencies by analyzing
the flow forces, geometric characteristics and pressure gradients. The model was validated using the
manufacturer’s published experimental data and subsequently used to study the effect of geometric
changes on the velocity of the poppet to make PWM control easier to implement on DFCU valves.

2. Problem Definition

2.1. Computational Domain

The computational model was established starting with a commercial model of a solenoid
controlled, 2 position and 3 port, poppet valve as seen in Figure 1. A computational domain to
characterize the flow through ports 1 and 2 was developed. Port 3 was not completely modeled
because the disregarded portion doesn’t significantly affect the flow in the head area and therefore it is
considered negligible. The cartridge valve was assumed to be inserted into a manifold where each
port is connected to pipes assumed to be long enough to consider fully developed flow. The length of
 Energies 2019, 12, 889 3 of 18

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

the pipes was estimated using turbulent flow in pipe theory per Equation (1) and the properties of
95 Energies
flow at the
flow at the2018, 11, x FOR
normal
normal
PEER
valve
valve
REVIEW conditions. It was estimated that the pipe length should not3be
operating
operating
of 18
conditions. It was estimated that the pipe length should not be less
96 less than
0.13at0.13 m.
95 than
flow m.the normal valve operating conditions. It was estimated that the pipe length should not be
1 𝟏
96 less than 0.13 m. 𝑳L𝒅d==𝟒.4.4
𝟒 ·∙D
𝑫· Re
∙ 𝑹𝒆
6 , 𝟔 , Re 𝟏𝟎7 𝟕
𝑹𝒆≤ 10 (1)
(1)
𝟏
𝑳𝒅 = 𝟒. 𝟒 ∙ 𝑫 ∙ 𝑹𝒆 𝟔, 𝑹𝒆 𝟏𝟎𝟕 (1)

C.V.
C.V.

Figure 1. Representation of the implemented valve: (a) ISO schematic representation; (b) picture
of the 1.
Figure valve cartridge; (c)
Representation ofdetailed Section using
the implemented a CAD
valve: model.
(a) ISO schematic representation; (b) picture of the
Figure 1. Representation of the implemented valve: (a) ISO schematic representation; (b) picture
valve cartridge; (c) detailed Section using a CAD model.
97 The of the valve model
geometric cartridge;
of (c)
thedetailed
poppetSection
valveusing
was asimplified
CAD model.
by not considering elements like the
98 seals The
andgeometric
retaining model of thethe
rings from poppet valveinserted
cartridge was simplified by not considering
in the manifold, as well aselements like the
the fittings seals
used to
99 97 connect
The geometric
and retaining rings from
the tubbing
modelcartridge
to thethe
of the poppet
manifold ports.
valve
inserted
These
was
the simplified
in elements
manifold, by not
as well
are assumed astoconsidering
the fittings
have
elements
used
a negligible
like the
toeffect
connect
as
100 98 theseals
was
and retaining
tubbing
noted intoprevious
ringsports.
the manifold from These
the cartridge
studies [29,30]. elements
The
inserted
are of
geometry
in theto
assumed manifold, as well as
have a negligible
the implemented domain is
the as
effect
shown
fittings
was used to
noted
in Figure
101 99 previous studies [29,30]. The geometry of the implemented domain is shown in Figure 2, below. as
connect
in below.
2,
the tubbing to the manifold ports. These elements are assumed to have a negligible effect
100 was noted in previous studies [29,30]. The geometry of the implemented domain is shown in Figure
101 2, below.

102
Figure 2. Scaled down representation of the physical model domain at 45◦ .
103102 Figure 2. Scaled down representation of the physical model domain at 45°.

104103 2.2. Governing Equations

Figure 2. Scaled down representation of the physical model domain at 45°.

105104 2.2.1.
2.2.Conservation
Governing Equations
Equations

105 2.2.1. Conservation Equations

Energies 2019, 12, 889 4 of 18

2.2. Governing Equations

2.2.1. Conservation Equations

The mass and moment conservation Equations for incompressible flow excluding all external
forces, including gravitational forces are given by the following Equations. It is assumed that changes
in density of the fluid are very small and therefore negligible in the analysis.

∇·U = 0 (2)

and,  
δ
ρ (U ) + ∇·(U × U ) = −∇ p + ∇·τ (3)
δt
Assuming isentropic and Newtonian flow, the stress tensor is defined as:
 
τ = µ ∇ × U + (∇ × U ) T (4)

2.2.2. RANS Models

The Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) models are Equations of motion for fluid flow
averaged over time and were used to model turbulence. The model assumes that an instantaneous
quantity is decomposed into its time-averaged and fluctuating quantities.

U = U + U,
e p = p + pe, τ = τ + τe (5)

The RANS Equations for the conservation Equations become:

∇·U = 0 (6)
 
δ

  
ρ U + ∇· U × U = −∇ p + ∇· τ − ρ U e ×U e (7)
δt
 
where the term ρ Ue ×Ue is known as the Reynolds stress. In this model the Boussinesq eddy viscosity
assumption is used, and the Reynolds stress then becomes:

e = µt ∇ × U + ∇ × U T − 2 ρIκ
  

ρ Ue ×U (8)
3
where µt is known as the turbulent viscosity or Eddy viscosity and κ is the average turbulent energy.
The set of Equations (5)–(8) together with a turbulence model to solve for the turbulent viscosity are
used to model the turbulent flow and were solved using a commercial CFD solver (ANSYS®Academic
Research Fluent, Release 17).

2.2.3. Wall Effect Functions

Turbulent flows are significantly affected by the presence of walls where no slip occurs.
This generates changes in the behavior of the turbulent flow and large velocity gradients, where
generally speaking, linearized discretization methods do not appropriately match the real flow values.
When using RANS models, particularly of the family of κ-ε models in this work, empirical functions
known as wall effect functions may be implemented to account for the effects of this boundary layer.
It is always necessary to develop a mesh with refined elements at and near the surface to satisfy
boundary layer requirements. The level of refinement required depends upon both the turbulence
model and the wall function being selected.
 Energies 2019, 12, 889 5 of 18

The standard wall effect function assumes a logarithmic profile to model effects of turbulent flow
near a boundary.
1 1
U + = ln y+ + C = ln Ey+



(9)
k k
where the terms k, E, C are empirical terms, U + and y+ are non-dimensional terms for the velocity
and the position
Energies of the
2018, 11, x FOR boundary
PEER REVIEW layer, respectively. 5 of 18

136 2.3.
2.3.Numerical
NumericalMethods
Methods

137 2.3.1.
2.3.1.CFD
CFDMethods
Methods
138 For
Forthis
thisproject
projectthe thesimulations
simulationswere wereperformed
performed usingusing ANSYS®Academic
ANSYS® AcademicResearch ResearchFluent,
Fluent,
139 Release 17. In all simulated cases the model was initialized using potential
Release 17. In all simulated cases the model was initialized using potential flow, the SIMPLE flow, the SIMPLE
140 algorithm
algorithmwas wasused
usedfor forthe
thesolution
solutionofofthe
theconservation
conservationEquations
Equationsand andsecond-order
second-orderdiscretization
discretization
141 schemes
schemes for pressure, velocity and turbulent terms were used. Finally, transientsimulations
for pressure, velocity and turbulent terms were used. Finally, transient simulationswith witha a
142 temporally
temporallyimplicit
implicitscheme
schemewere wereimplemented
implementedfor forthe
thedynamic
dynamicanalysis.
analysis.Results
Resultsfrom
fromsteady
steadystate
state
143 simulations were used to initialize the model and the “layering” meshing
simulations were used to initialize the model and the “layering” meshing technique was technique was implemented
144 for simulating the
implemented for movement
simulating of thethe valve poppet
movement of thewithin
valvethe mesh.
poppet within the mesh.
145 The constant pressure outlet boundary conditions
The constant pressure outlet boundary conditions were implemented were implemented at at
thethe Section
Section nextnext to
to port
146 port 3 and at the exit pipe. At the inlet of the pipe a fixed velocity was imposed
3 and at the exit pipe. At the inlet of the pipe a fixed velocity was imposed for steady state simulations for steady state
147 simulations
and a fixedand a fixed
pressure pressurewas
condition condition
imposed wasforimposed for the
the transient transient to
simulations simulations to ensure
ensure mathematical
148 mathematical stability. An interface boundary condition between the exit
stability. An interface boundary condition between the exit pipe and port 2 of the valve pipe and port 2 of the valve
was
149 was implemented, where in case of mutual contact one side would act as an
implemented, where in case of mutual contact one side would act as an internal face and the internal face and theother
otheras
150 asa aboundary
boundarywall,wall,the
theimplemented
implementedboundary
boundaryconditions
conditionsare areshown
shownininFigure
Figure3.3.

151
152 Figure3.3.Diagram
Figure Diagramofofimplemented
implementedboundary
boundaryconditions.
conditions.

153 2.3.2.
2.3.2.Mesh
MeshIndependence
Independence
154 All
Allmeshes
mesheswere
weregenerated
generatedusing
usingANSYS®Academic
ANSYS® AcademicResearchResearchICEM,
ICEM,Release
Release1717software,
software,the
the
155 meshing method used is called “Octree” with prismatic elements generated for the walls at the
meshing method used is called “Octree” with prismatic elements generated for the walls at the inlet inlet and
156 outlet pipes.pipes.
and outlet The mesh
The was
meshrefined at the valve,
was refined at the especially near the
valve, especially poppet
near and seat
the poppet areas.
and seatThe mesh
areas. The
157 was initially generated assuming ports 1 and 2 were closed, and the “layering” tool
mesh was initially generated assuming ports 1 and 2 were closed, and the “layering” tool for for generation
158 ofgeneration
dynamic meshes of ANSYS®Academic
of dynamic meshes of ANSYS® Research Fluent,
Academic Release Fluent,
Research 17 was used to connect
Release 17 was ports
used 1to
159 and 2 according to the poppet dimensions as shown in Figure 4. The independence of
connect ports 1 and 2 according to the poppet dimensions as shown in Figure 4. The independence the mesh was
160 evaluated
of the meshwith 5 progressively
was evaluated with refined meshes applied
5 progressively refinedover the entire
meshes domain.
applied over the entire domain.
155 meshing method used is called “Octree” with prismatic elements generated for the walls at the inlet
156 and outlet pipes. The mesh was refined at the valve, especially near the poppet and seat areas. The
157 mesh was initially generated assuming ports 1 and 2 were closed, and the “layering” tool for
158 generation of dynamic meshes of ANSYS® Academic Research Fluent, Release 17 was used to
159 connect ports
Energies 2019, 1 and 2 according to the poppet dimensions as shown in Figure 4. The independence
12, 889 6 of 18
160 of the mesh was evaluated with 5 progressively refined meshes applied over the entire domain.

161
162 Detail of
Figure 4. Detail of elements
elements generated using the “layering” tool in ANSYS.

Mesh refinements were realized using approximately 20% increases in the number of elements
between meshes. Simulations were evaluated at a velocity of 8.83 m/s, equivalent to approximately
4.44E-04 m3 /s (7.04 gpm or 26.6 lpm), with fluid properties as listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Properties of the fluid used in the simulation.

Material Temperature (◦ C) Density (kg/m3 ) Dynamic Viscosity (kg·m/s)

Oil AW 32 49 847.8 0.0195

Mesh independence was tested using two thousand iterations of the steady state simulations
where the residuals were verified to be less than 10−5 . For this mesh independence study standard
κ-ε was used. The poppet has the standard commercial geometry and the state of the valve is fully
open allowing flow from port 1 to port 2. The convergence parameter selected was a pressure
differential measured at 5 diameters downstream and 10 diameters upstream with respect to the valve
in accordance with ISO standard ISO 4411:2008 [31].
The pressure differentials obtained with the simulations were compared to the reported values
from Sun hydraulics manufacturer’s data-sheet for valve model DWDA. All valves are tested at the
manufacturer’s facility using petroleum-based hydraulic fluid with a viscosity of approximately 25 cSt.
and a 19/17/14 fluid cleanliness level per ISO 4406 [32]. Table 2 below presents a comparison between
the published data and the corresponding simulated values.

Table 2. Summary of results for mesh convergence tests.

Elements Published Pressure (kPa) Simulated Pressure (kPa) Percent Error

3,970,308 540 603 11.70%
5,512,452 540 588 8.98%
8,239,820 540 576 6.72%
9,864,461 540 576 6.96%
12,308,409 540 574 6.45%

Results with errors less than 7% were obtained using the three finer meshes, and based on these
preliminary results, it was decided to use a mesh with approximately 9.8 million elements to ensure
good resolution at a reasonable computational time in comparison to the mesh with 12.3 million
of elements.

2.3.3. Turbulence Models

Similar to the process followed to test the mesh convergence, an evaluation process for validating
the turbulence models and wall functions was used. The evaluated turbulence models were the
Energies 2019, 12, 889 7 of 18

Standard κ-ε, Realizable κ-ε, κ-ω SST and Spalart-Allmaras. Two wall functions were evaluated, mainly
the Scalable Wall Functions (SWF) and Enhanced Wall Treatment (EWT) both available in the software.
Various combinations of turbulence models and wall functions were tested for runs consisting of
two thousand iterations of the steady state model and the pressure differentials obtained from the
simulation were compared to that of the published results. Table 3 below lists the results obtained for
the selection of the most appropriate turbulence and wall function combinations. The results had a
relative error of less than 13% for all turbulence models. The Standard κ-ε turbulence model with EWT
was selected because it had a lower relative error.

Table 3. Summary of results for turbulence and wall function tests.

Turbulence Model Published Pressure (kPa) Simulated Pressure (kPa) Percent Error
Standard κ-ε 540 577 6.96%
Standard κ-ε SWF 540 531 1.50%
Standard κ-ε EWT 540 543 0.61%
Realizable κ-ε SWT 540 484 10.34%
Realizable κ-ε EWT 540 550 1.94%
κ-ω SST 540 607 12.6%
Spalart-Allmaras 540 577 3.45%

Given the results presented in Table 3 the combination for turbulence model and wall function of
Standard κ-ε and EWT, respectively, is used in the rest of the work. For this flow rate an error of less
than 1% was obtained with respect to the published pressure drop. This combination of models is able
to accurately model the boundary layer and the viscous dissipation therein.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Results Validation using Manufacturer’s Published Data

Before proceeding to analyze the dynamic simulation results, the selected model was validated
using the pressure differential at various flow rates. The simulations were developed in steady state
with six thousand iterations obtaining residuals of magnitudes less than 10-6 . These results are listed
in Table 4 below and plotted in Figure 5. Notice that the slight difference between the pressure drop at
the higher flow rate of Table 4 and that obtained in the previous Section (Table 3) is due to the results
in this Section being obtained with six thousand iterations (two thousand in the previous Section).
The simulated data demonstrates less than 5% error at flow rates of 2.24 × 10−4 m3 /s (3.55 gpm
or 13.4 lpm) and greater. The higher percentual error at lower flow rates is very likely due to the
flow transitioning to laminar at this lower Reynolds numbers (approximately Re = 467 based on the
diameter of the port for the lower flow rate) and the turbulence model struggling to accurately capture
the physics of the system.

Table 4. Summary of pressure differential from static simulation at various flow velocities.

Flow Rate (m3 /s) Published Pressure (kPa) Simulated Pressure (kPa) Percent Error
4.44 × 10−4 540 559 3.59%
3.76 × 10−4 389 404 3.96%
3.01 × 10−4 252 262 4.08%
2.24 × 10−4 144 148 3.07%
1.47 × 10−4 64 67 5.42%
6.75 × 10−5 14 16 14.83%
 Energies 2019, 12, 889 8 of 18
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Figure5.5.Comparison
Figure Comparison between
between pressure
pressure differential
differential from
from thethe simulation
simulation andand the manufacturer’s
the manufacturer’s data.
data.
3.2. Dynamic Analysis

3.2.1. Results at a Frequency of 25 Hz

214 3.2. Dynamic Analysis
Starting from the good fitting of the simulation model and the manufacturer’s experimental data
215 sheet,Results
3.2.1. at a Frequency
the movement of 25in
of the valve Hz.
the dynamic analysis was modeled in three different ways. First,
216 for the
Starting from the good fitting of 1the
opening process where ports and 2 are initially
simulation model disconnected, the model was
and the manufacturer’s configured
experimental so
data
217 that the displacement of the valve was represented by the function in Equation (10).
sheet, the movement of the valve in the dynamic analysis was modeled in three different ways. First,
218 for the opening process where ports 1 and 2 are initially disconnected, the model was configured so
P(t) = ±(0.5A − 0.5Atanh(Kh (t − De ))), Kh = 180, De = 0.2 (10)
219 that the displacement of the valve was represented by the function in Equation 10.
Equation (10) is𝑃a continuous
𝑡 = ± 0.5𝐴approximation
− 0.5𝐴𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ 𝐾 of𝑡 the − 𝐷“head-viside” 𝐷 = 0.2 where A is the (10)
, 𝐾 = 180,function, total
motion amplitude of the valve with a magnitude of 2.501 mm, Kh is a constant value affecting the time
220 Equation
required (10)
for the is a continuous
poppet to traverseapproximation
from one positionof theto“head-viside”
the other, De is function,
an inducedwhere A isdelay
valve the total
for
221 motion amplitude of the valve with a magnitude of 2.501 mm, K is a constant
obtaining steady state data before the poppet starts moving. These values were selected to match the
h value affecting the
222 time required
actual valve timefor the poppet
of 40 to traverse
ms required fromthe
to move onepoppet
position to the
from theother, De is antoinduced
fully closed valve
fully open delay
position.
223 for obtaining steady state data before the poppet starts moving. These values were
The configuration for the displacement of the poppet for opening and closing of the valve assumed it selected to match
224 the actual
was the samevalve time with
function of 40anmsopposite
required to move
sign. the poppet
The control signal to from the fully
operate closed to
the position fully
of the open
poppet
225 position.
was The configuration
assumed for the displacement
to follow a sinusoidal of the poppet for opening and closing of the valve
signal of the form:
226 assumed it was the same function with an oppositesign. The control signal to operate the position of
227 the poppet was assumed to follow a sinusoidal signal
P(t) = Asin 2πoff+theπ form: (11)
2
𝜋
𝑃 𝑡 = 𝐴𝑠𝑖𝑛 2𝜋𝑓 + (11)
The implemented movements of the poppet are displayed 2 in Figure 6.
228 All
Thethe simulations
implemented were initialized
movements with 6000
of the poppet are iterations
displayedin in steady
Figure state
6. at the initial position.
Later the simulation was carried out in transient state with a simulation time of 0.08 ms and time
steps of 0.001 ms and 30 iterations per time step. The simulations were evaluated using the optimal
values obtained from the mesh independence study presented in Section 2.3.2., at approximately
the same flow rate used in the study. The resulting inlet velocity was estimated to be 8.83 m/s and
666.4 kPa. The results of the dynamic analysis for opening and closing the valve are shown in Figure 7.
It was found that pressure drop during the single opening and closing procedure is similar to the
result obtained with a fluctuating sinusoidal position command. Approximate values of 500 and
760 kPa were observed as maximum and minimum pressure drops during valve opening and closing
 Energies 2019, 12, 889 9 of 18

events. Small pressure instabilities during the opening and closing procedures were observed just after
reaching the maximum position of the poppet while ports 1 and 2 were open. Changes to the time
parameters De and Kh did not show a significant effect on reducing or increasing the instabilities. Also,
varying the amount of iterations per time step didn’t have much effect in reducing the instabilities.
Therefore, these instabilities might be associated to the remeshing algorithm during the opening and
229 closing of the valve. Likewise, other authors have demonstrated that the force instability increases as
230 the valve
Energies opening
2018, 11, is small
x FOR PEER which6.might
Figure
REVIEW suggest
Transient thatofthe
analysis instabilities
poppet are physical [33,34].
displacement. 9 of 18

231 All the simulations were initialized with 6000 iterations in steady state at the initial position.
232 Later the simulation was carried out in transient state with a simulation time of 0.08 ms and time
233 steps of 0.001 ms and 30 iterations per time step. The simulations were evaluated using the optimal
234 values obtained from the mesh independence study presented in Section 2.3.2., at approximately the
235 same flow rate used in the study. The resulting inlet velocity was estimated to be 8.83 m/s and 666.4
236 kPa. The results of the dynamic analysis for opening and closing the valve are shown in Figure 7. It
237 was found that pressure drop during the single opening and closing procedure is similar to the result
238 obtained with a fluctuating sinusoidal position command. Approximate values of 500 and 760 kPa
239 were observed as maximum and minimum pressure drops during valve opening and closing events.
240 Small pressure instabilities during the opening and closing procedures were observed just after
241 reaching the maximum position of the poppet while ports 1 and 2 were open. Changes to the time
242 parameters De and Kh did not show a significant effect on reducing or increasing the instabilities. Also,
243 varying the amount of iterations per time step didn’t have much effect in reducing the instabilities.
244 Therefore, these instabilities might be associated to the remeshing algorithm during the opening and
229
245 closing of the valve. Likewise, other authors have demonstrated that the force instability increases as
230
246 the valve opening is smallFigure 6. might
Figure
which Transient
6. analysis
Transient ofof
analysis
suggest that poppet
thepoppetdisplacement.
displacement.
instabilities are physical [33,34].

231 All the simulations were initialized with 6000 iterations in steady state at the initial position.
232 Later the simulation was carried out in transient state with a simulation time of 0.08 ms and time
233 steps of 0.001 ms and 30 iterations per time step. The simulations were evaluated using the optimal
234 values obtained from the mesh independence study presented in Section 2.3.2., at approximately the
235 same flow rate used in the study. The resulting inlet velocity was estimated to be 8.83 m/s and 666.4
236 kPa. The results of the dynamic analysis for opening and closing the valve are shown in Figure 7. It
237 was found that pressure drop during the single opening and closing procedure is similar to the result
238 obtained with a fluctuating sinusoidal position command. Approximate values of 500 and 760 kPa
239 were observed as maximum and minimum pressure drops during valve opening and closing events.
240 Small pressure instabilities during the opening and closing procedures were observed just after
241 reaching the maximum position of the poppet while ports 1 and 2 were open. Changes to the time
242 parameters De and Kh did not show a significant effect on reducing or increasing the instabilities. Also,
243 varying the amount of iterations per time step didn’t have much effect in reducing the instabilities.
244 Therefore, these instabilities might be associated to the remeshing algorithm during the opening and
245 closing of the valve. Likewise, other authors have demonstrated that the force instability increases as
246 the valve opening is small which might suggest that the instabilities are physical [33,34].

Figure Dynamic
7. Dynamic
Figure 7. analysis
analysis of pressure
of pressure differential
differential for closing
for opening, opening, closing and
procedures procedures and
fluctuating
fluctuating
positions. positions.

3.2.2. Parametric Analysis

The inlet pressure and input poppet frequency were changed to analyze the effect of these
parameter on the behavior of the pressure drop, poppet force and flow for two cycles of poppet motion
using a sinusoidal input. These simulations were conducted in order to understand the effect on
pressure differential at various poppet frequencies as well as different flow inputs. The levels for
each of the parameters used in the simulations are summarized in Table 5. The time steps in the
248 The inlet pressure and input poppet frequency were changed to analyze the effect of these
249 parameter on the behavior of the pressure drop, poppet force and flow for two cycles of poppet
250 motion using a sinusoidal input. These simulations were conducted in order to understand the effect
251 on pressure differential at various poppet frequencies as well as different flow inputs. The levels for
252 each of2019,
Energies the12,
parameters
889 used in the simulations are summarized in Table 5. The time steps in the
10 of 18
253 simulations were adjusted so that at each step the poppet had achieved the same position irrespective
254 of the input frequency. The flow rates selected were based on simulations obtained during the steady
simulations were adjusted so that at each step the poppet had achieved the same position irrespective
255 state validation of the mesh presented in Section 2.
of the input frequency. The flow rates selected were based on simulations obtained during the steady
256 state validation of the 5.
Table mesh presented
Parameters and in Section
levels 2. for the transient state simulations.
analyzed

Parameter 1 and levels analyzed

Table 5. Parameters 2 for the transient3state simulations. 4
Frequency
Parameter 25 1 50 2 100
3 4 200
(Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
Inlet Pressure 25 50 100 200
70.5
Inlet Pressure (kPa) 70.5 271.7 271.7 417.3
417.3 666.4666.4
(kPa)

257 Figure 8 displays the pressure gradient for four portions of the cycle when the poppet is closing
258 opening using
and opening using a sinusoidal
sinusoidal input
input at 25 Hz. ItIt was observed
observed that during
during the closing process the
259 pressure difference between
between port
port 1 and the connection
connection to port 2 is greater than during the opening
260 process. The pressure drop, flow forces on the poppet and flow flow rates
rates at
at various
various frequencies
frequencies areare shown
shown
261 in Figure 9 for an inlet pressure of 666.4
666.4 kPa
kPa and
and several
several poppet
poppet frequencies.
frequencies. The The pressure
pressure drop
262 increased for higher
higher cycle
cycle frequencies,
frequencies,as
asdid
didthe
theforces
forceson
onthe
thepoppet,
poppet,especially
especiallyduring
duringthethe
closing
closingof
263 thethe
of poppet. Peak
poppet. forces
Peak on on
forces thethe
poppet were
poppet double
were between
double betweenpoppet frequency
poppet frequencyof 25
of Hz andand
25 Hz 200 200
Hz.
264 FlowFlow
Hz. rates rates
decrease with higher
decrease poppet poppet
with higher frequencies and withand
frequencies respect
with to respect
the steadyto state simulations,
the steady state
265 which was expected.
simulations, which was expected.

Figure 8. Pressure gradients at various cycle timings for 25 Hz during closing and opening procedures.
Figure 8. Pressure gradients at various cycle timings for 25 Hz during closing and opening
procedures.
Figure 10 depicts the pressure gradient for frequencies between 25 Hz and 200 Hz at a timing of
one a quarter cycle. It is worth noting that the pressure result at port 2 (outlet) seems to be unaffected
by poppet frequency and increase pressure buildup is occurring mainly upstream.
 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Energies 2019, 12, 889 11 of 18

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Figure 9. Simulated results at various frequencies for 666.4 kPa inlet pressure, (a) pressure
differential, (b) net force on the poppet, (c) inlet flow, (d) outlet flow, (e) average inlet and outlet
flows for second cycle.
Figure
Figure 9. Simulated
9. Simulated results
results at various
at various frequencies
frequencies for kPa
for 666.4 666.4 kPa
inlet inlet pressure,
pressure, (a) differential,
(a) pressure pressure
266 Figure 10 depicts
(b)differential,
net force on(b) thethe pressure
net poppet,
force on the gradient
poppet,
(c) inlet for
(c) (d)
flow, frequencies
inletoutlet
flow, flow, between
(d) outlet 25 Hz and
flow, (e) inlet
(e) average average 200
andinlet Hz atoutlet
a timing
andflows
outlet for of
267 one asecond
quarter forcycle.
flowscycle.secondIt cycle.
is worth noting that the pressure result at port 2 (outlet) seems to be unaffected
268 by poppet frequency and increase pressure buildup is occurring mainly upstream.
266 Figure 10 depicts the pressure gradient for frequencies between 25 Hz and 200 Hz at a timing of
267 one a quarter cycle. It is worth noting that the pressure result at port 2 (outlet) seems to be unaffected
268 by poppet frequency and increase pressure buildup is occurring mainly upstream.

Figure 10. Pressure gradients during second cycle at 1.25 timing for various frequencies during the
Figure 10. Pressure gradients during second cycle at 1.25 timing for various frequencies during the
closing procedure.
closing procedure.
Figure
Figure1110.depicts the
Pressure differential
gradients pressure
during and at
second cycle net force
1.25 on for
timing thevarious
poppetfrequencies
and flowduring
rates at
thethe inlet
and outlet of ports
closing 1 and 2 when the valve is operated at 200 Hz and a range of inlet pressures. Similar
procedure.
269 Figure 11 depicts the differential pressure and net force on the poppet and flow rates at the inlet
270 and outlet of ports 1 and 2 when the valve is operated at 200 Hz and a range of inlet pressures. Similar
271 to the steady state behavior, it was observed that the pressure drop across the two ports increased
272 with increasing inlet pressure. This behavior is consistent for all studied frequencies. The results can
273 be used
Energies 2019,to12,estimate
889 the required force necessary to close the poppet. It was observed that the12force
of 18
274 required to close the poppet increases sixfold between an inlet pressure of 70.5 kPa and 666.4 kPa.
275 The flow rate decreases as the frequency is increased.
to the steady state behavior, it was observed that the pressure drop across the two ports increased
276 It can be observed in Figure 12 that pressure gradients decrease as inlet pressure decreases. The
with increasing inlet pressure. This behavior is consistent for all studied frequencies. The results can
277 simulated pressure values for port 1 were between 70.5 kPa and 666.4 kPa. As inlet pressure increases
be used to estimate the required force necessary to close the poppet. It was observed that the force
278 velocity also increases and the pressures in port 2 are maintained between 5 kPa and 20 kPa. At an
279 required to close
inlet pressure of the poppet
666.4 increases
kPa, vortices sixfold
were between
observed, ancreated
which inlet pressure of 70.5
low pressure kPa and
points with666.4 kPa.
values of
280 The flow rate
−5 kPa to 15 kPa. decreases as the frequency is increased.

Figure
Figure 11. 11. Simulated
Simulated results
results at 200
at 200 Hz Hz
for for varying
varying inlet
inlet pressures,
pressures, (a) pressure
(a) pressure differential,
differential, (b) force
(b) net net
force on the poppet, (c) inlet flow, (d) outlet flow, (e) average inlet and outlet flows
on the poppet, (c) inlet flow, (d) outlet flow, (e) average inlet and outlet flows for second cycle. for second
cycle.
It can be observed in Figure 12 that pressure gradients decrease as inlet pressure decreases. The
simulated pressure values for port 1 were between 70.5 kPa and 666.4 kPa. As inlet pressure increases
velocity also increases and the pressures in port 2 are maintained between 5 kPa and 20 kPa. At an
inlet pressure of 666.4 kPa, vortices were observed, which created low pressure points with values of
−5 kPa to 15 kPa.
 Energies 2019, 12, 889 13 of 18
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Figure Pressure
12.12.
Figure gradients
Pressure during
gradients second
during cyclecycle
second for the
for closing procedure
the closing at varying
procedure flow rates
at varying flow (flow
rates
velocity).
(flow velocity).
3.2.3. Non-dimensional Analysis

281 The
3.2.3. previous SectionAnalysis
Non-dimensional highlights the overall complexities involved in the interaction between all
parameters involved in the valve dynamics at high frequencies. A non-dimensional analysis of the
282 The previous Section highlights the overall complexities involved in the interaction between all
system behavior was performed for the purpose of obtaining a general representation of the results.
283 parameters involved in the valve dynamics at high frequencies. A non-dimensional analysis of the
It is assumed that the pressure drop dp is a function of the valve geometry and the flow properties.
284 system behavior was performed for the purpose of obtaining a general representation of the results.
Therefore the pressure drop can be expressed in terms of the relevant variables as:
285 It is assumed that the pressure drop dp is a function of the valve geometry and the flow properties.
286 Therefore the pressure drop can be expressed
dp = g(in
Q,terms
f , µ, ρ,ofDthe
) relevant variables as: (12)
𝑑𝑝 = 𝑔 𝑄, 𝑓, 𝜇, 𝜌, 𝐷 (12)
where Q is the average flow rate, f is the poppet displacement frequency, µ is the viscosity of the fluid,
287 ρ where Q is theofaverage
is the density the fluid,flow
andrate, f is diameter
D is the the poppet displacement
at the frequency,
inlet for port μ is the viscosity
1. The non-dimensional of the
analysis
288 fluid, ρ is the density of the fluid,
leads to three dimensionless numbers. and D is the diameter at the inlet for port 1. The non-dimensional
289 analysis leads to three dimensionless numbers.
f ρD2 Qρ dpρD2
πf = , πQ = , πdp = (13)
𝜋 =µ , 𝜋 =µD , 𝜋 = µ2 (13)

290 Figure
Figure1313shows the the
shows results of theofevaluation
results of the non-dimensional
the evaluation numbers at
of the non-dimensional the flow at
numbers conditions
the flow
291 presented
conditionsin the previousinSection.
presented The curves
the previous characterize
Section. the behavior
The curves of the non-dimensional
characterize the behavior of pressure
the non-
292 drop π dp as a function
dimensional pressure ofdrop πdp as a functionflow
the non-dimensional ratenon-dimensional
of the π Q for several frequencies πQ for to
flow rate related the
several
293 non-dimensional number π f .
frequencies related to the non-dimensional number πf.
Figure 13 shows that there is a direct relationship between π dp and π Q. Increasing the
non-dimensional frequency number π f increases the slope in the π dp and π Q relationship. As the
working frequency is increased the flow losses increase at a given flow rate. Numerically speaking,
if the pressure drop is required to be kept constant at higher frequency of operation, it would be
necessary to decrease the flow rate, for instance for a constant π dp = 8 × 107 it would be required
to decrease the flow rate by more than 50% to increase the frequency from 25 to 200 Hz. Using the
non-dimensional numbers from Equation (13) and the plot in Figure 13, it could be inferred that
implementing changes in some of the parameters of the valve or the operating conditions could lead
to an improved valve dynamic behavior without incurring an increase in pressure loss. For example,
decreasing the viscosity of the fluid is an effective way to be able to operate the valve at higher
frequencies and flow rates due to the quadratic response between this constant and the π dp number.
Increasing the diameter at port 1 would slightly decrease the flow and would increase moderately the
pressure drop, at higher frequencies.
 Energies 2019, 12, 889 14 of 18
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18

294
295 Figure 13. Non-dimensionalized valve parameter relations.

296 Figure 13 shows that there is a direct relationship between πdp and πQ. Increasing the non-
297 dimensional frequency number πf increases the slope in the πdp and πQ relationship. As the working
298 frequency is increased the flow losses increase at a given flow rate. Numerically speaking, if the
299 pressure drop is required to be kept constant at higher frequency of operation, it would be necessary
300 to decrease the flow rate, for instance for a constant πdp = 8 × 107 it would be required to decrease the
301 flow rate by more than 50% to increase the frequency from 25 to 200 Hz. Using the non-dimensional
302 numbers from Equation (13) and the plot in Figure 13, it could be inferred that implementing changes
303 in some of the parameters of the valve or the operating conditions could lead to an improved valve
304 dynamic behavior without incurring an increase in pressure loss. For example, decreasing the
305 viscosity of the fluid is an effective way to be able to operate the valve at higher frequencies and flow
306 rates due to the quadratic response between this constant and the πdp number. Increasing the diameter
307
294 at port 1 would slightly decrease the flow and would increase moderately the pressure drop, at higher
308
295 frequencies. Figure 13. Non-dimensionalized valve parameter relations.
relations.

309
296 3.2.4. Evaluation
3.2.4.Figure
Evaluation of
13 showsof Variation
Variation of
that thereofthe
the Poppet Angle
is Poppet
a directAngle
relationship between πdp and πQ. Increasing the non-
297
310 dimensional
The seatfrequency
The seat and poppet
poppet number πwere
anglewere
angle f increases
another
another thedesign
design the πdp used
slopeparameter
in
parameter and πto
used relationship.
Q to evaluate
evaluate thetheAssensitivity
the working
sensitivity of
of the
298
311 frequency
the model.
model. isAngles
Angles increased
lower lowerthethan
than flowcommercial
the thelosses increase
commercial at were
a given
poppet
poppet were flow
tested torate.
tested to Numerically
study study speaking,
the effect
the effect on ifdrop
on pressure
pressure the
299
312 pressure
drop anddrop
and flow flow
forces is required
forces
during duringto be
closing kept
closing constant at higher
and opening
and opening events.
events. frequency
Figure Figure of
14 operation,
14 depicts depicts
various it would
various be necessary
representations
representations of the
300
313 to
of decrease
the the
redesigned
redesigned flow
poppet rate,
poppet for instance
geometries.
geometries. Thefor
Thea constant
changechange
in in πdpangle
angle = 8 was
× 10
was7 it would be required to decrease the
implementedinsuring
implemented insuring the poppet
poppet
301
314 flow rate by more
displacement
displacement than 50%
remained
remained to increase
unchanged
unchanged andthe
and frequency from
guaranteeing
guaranteeing that
thatthe 25 clearance
the to 200 Hz.between
clearance Using the
between thenon-dimensional
the poppet
poppetandandthe
the
302
315 numbers
seat
seatwas from Equation
wasmaintained
maintained to (13) and the
tominimize
minimize plot inlosses
pressure
pressure Figureatat13,
losses it could
valve
valve be inferred that implementing changes
closing.
closing.
303 in some of the parameters of the valve or the operating conditions could lead to an improved valve
304 dynamic behavior without incurring an increase in pressure loss. For example, decreasing the
305 viscosity of the fluid is an effective way to be able to operate the valve at higher frequencies and flow
306 rates due to the quadratic response between this constant and the πdp number. Increasing the diameter
307 at port 1 would slightly decrease the flow and would increase moderately the pressure drop, at higher
308 frequencies.

309 3.2.4. Evaluation of Variation of the Poppet Angle

310 The seat and poppet angle
Figure 14.were another
Poppet designevaluated
valve angles parameter used
in the to evaluate the sensitivity of the
simulation.
311 model. Angles lower than the commercial poppet were tested to study
Figure 14. Poppet valve angles evaluated in the simulation. the effect on pressure drop
312 The results
and flow for the variation
forces during closing and of the poppet
opening angleFigure
events. are depicted in Figure
14 depicts 15.representations
various It was found that
of the
313 angle has minimal
redesigned poppeteffect on pressure
geometries. Thedifferential,
change in the angle
maximum wasvalues obtained were
implemented between
insuring the 107 kPa
poppet
314 to 110 kPa, which are less than a 1% change with respect to the original poppet
displacement remained unchanged and guaranteeing that the clearance between the poppet and the angle.
315 Similarly,
seat was changes
maintained toin the flow pressure
minimize rate at thelosses
inlet at
and outlet
valve where not significant. However, the flow
closing.
forces during the entire motion of the poppet were seen to increase as the angles were decreased, which
from an energetic perspective allows us to conclude that reducing the poppet angle is undesirable
because it would lead to larger power requirements for actuation of the valve.
Figure 16 shows the pressure gradients for the closing process, it can be seen from the Figure
that as the angle is reduced, negative pressure zones were reduced, which is associated with larger
changes in the flow direction at port 2, leading to accelerated flows during the closing of port 1. This is
assumed to be the principal cause for the increase in flow forces for lower angles. This is considered to
be a local phenomenon, meaning it only affects the velocity, pressure and force around the poppet, but
does not affect global variables such as inlet and outlet flow and pressure differential.

Figure 14. Poppet valve angles evaluated in the simulation.

 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18

316 The results for the variation of the poppet angle are depicted in Figure 15. It was found that the
Energies 2019, 12, 889 15 of 18
317 angle has minimal effect on pressure differential, the maximum values obtained were between 107
318 kPa to 110 kPa, which are less than a 1% change with respect to the original poppet angle.

Figure 15. Simulated results for a 25 Hz operating frequency and a 666.4 kPa inlet pressure. (a)
Pressure differential, (b) net force on the poppet, (c) inlet flow, (d) outlet flow.

319 Similarly, changes in the flow rate at the inlet and outlet where not significant. However, the
320 flow forces during the entire motion of the poppet were seen to increase as the angles were decreased,
321 which from an energetic perspective allows us to conclude that reducing the poppet angle is
322 undesirable because it would lead to larger power requirements for actuation of the valve.
323 Figure 16 shows the pressure gradients for the closing process, it can be seen from the Figure
324 that as the angle is reduced, negative pressure zones were reduced, which is associated with larger
325 changes in the flow direction at port 2, leading to accelerated flows during the closing of port 1. This
326 is assumed to be the principal cause for the increase in flow forces for lower angles. This is considered
327 to be Figure
aFigure
local15.
phenomenon,
15.Simulated
meaning
Simulatedresults forfor
results
it Hz
a 25 only
a 25
affects
operating
Hz operating
the frequency
velocity,
frequency and pressure
aand
666.4 kPaand
a 666.4
force
inlet around
kPapressure.
the(a)
poppet,
(a) Pressure
inlet pressure.
328 but does not affect
differential, (b) global
net variables
force on the such
poppet, as
(c) inlet
inlet and
flow, outlet
(d) flow
outlet and
flow. pressure
Pressure differential, (b) net force on the poppet, (c) inlet flow, (d) outlet flow. differential.

319 Similarly, changes in the flow rate at the inlet and outlet where not significant. However, the
320 flow forces during the entire motion of the poppet were seen to increase as the angles were decreased,
321 which from an energetic perspective allows us to conclude that reducing the poppet angle is
322 undesirable because it would lead to larger power requirements for actuation of the valve.
323 Figure 16 shows the pressure gradients for the closing process, it can be seen from the Figure
324 that as the angle is reduced, negative pressure zones were reduced, which is associated with larger
325 changes in the flow direction at port 2, leading to accelerated flows during the closing of port 1. This
326 is assumed to be the principal cause for the increase in flow forces for lower angles. This is considered
327 to be a local phenomenon, meaning it only affects the velocity, pressure and force around the poppet,
328 but does not affect global variables such as inlet and outlet flow and pressure differential.

FigureFigure 16. Simulated

16. Simulated pressure
pressure gradient
gradient for closing
for closing event various
event using using various
poppetpoppet
angles.angles.
4. Conclusions
A model able to simulate the flow through a poppet valve was developed. The model was
validated by comparing the pressure drop at different flow rates and comparing with data provided by
the manufacturer of the valve. Values within 5% error were obtained for most flow rates. The model
is also able to model the dynamic behavior of the valve as the poppet opens and closes cyclically at
different frequencies.
The model was used to characterize the behavior of the flow through the valve as frequencies
increased from 25 Hz to 200 Hz. It was established that as frequency of operation of the valve
increased flow rate decreased. Also, forces on the poppet, related to the force needed to actuate the
valve, increased with increasing frequencies. For example, at the higher inlet pressure studied, force
Figure 16. Simulated pressure gradient for closing event using various poppet angles.
increased twofold as frequency went from 25 Hz to 200 Hz.
Energies 2019, 12, 889 16 of 18

In order to obtain more general results and to gain better insight on the process,
a non-dimensionalized parametric study revealed that changes in the fluid’s viscosity or the diameter
of the ports could effectively improve the performance of the valve. The analysis showed that as
frequency increased, the slope of the relation between pressure drop and flow rate became steeper. This
means that increasingly higher pressure drops occurred for a given flow rate as frequency increased.
It was shown that pressure drop under particular conditions were proportional to the square of the
viscosity and inversely proportional to the square of the diameter of the ports. Taking these parameters
into consideration may allow to design poppet valves systems that are able to operate at higher
frequencies. Finally, it was shown that poppet angle had little effect on the overall performance of
the system.
In order to continue improving the understanding of the overall behavior of poppet valves at
high frequencies and improve the design of such valves to make them capable of operating at high
frequencies, it would be interesting to couple the current model with that of the solenoid responsible
for operating the valve. This will allow to incorporate the response of that system into the overall time
response of the valve.
The current model can also aid in analyzing novel designs that are able of reducing pressure drop
and force on the poppet at high frequencies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.G.-M. and J.G.-B.; methodology, I.G., J.G.-B. and A.G.-M.; software,
A.G.-M. and I.G.; validation, I.G., J.G.-B. and A.G.-M.; formal analysis, I.G.; investigation, I.G.; resources, I.G.;
data curation, I.G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.G. and J.G.-B.; writing—review and editing, I.G., J.G.-B.,
B.N. and A.G.-M.; visualization, I.G.; supervision, A.G.-M. and J.G.-B.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
A Total movement amplitude of the poppet
C Empirical constant for the wall boundary
De Valve delay
dp Pressure drop across de valve
E Empirical constant for wall boundary
f Valve oscillation frequency
I Turbulence intensity
K von Karman constant
Kh Velocity factor for the change of head-viside function
P(t) Valve position function
p, p, pe Total pressure, average and fluctuating
Q Port 1 flow rate
t Time
U, U, U e Total velocity, average and fluctuating
U + Non-dimensional velocity
Y+ Non-dimensional distance to the wall
κ Turbulence energy
µ Dynamic viscosity
µt Turbulence viscosity
π dp Loss number
πf Frequency number
πQ Flow number
ρ Fluid’s density
τ, τ, τe Total Stress tensor, average, fluctuating
Energies 2019, 12, 889 17 of 18

References
1. Eaton, Industrial Hydraulics Manual: Your Comprehensive Guide to Industrial Hydraulics; Eaton Hydraulics:
Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2008; p. 642.
2. Byington, C.; Watson, M. A model-based approach to prognostics and health management for flight control
actuators. Aerosp. Conf. Proc. 2004, 6, 3551–3562.
3. Smith, M.; Byington, C.; Watson, M.; Bharadwaj, S.; Swerdon, G.; Goebel, K.; Balaban, E. Experimental and
analytical development of health management for Electro-Mechanical Actuators. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Aerospace conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 7–14 March 2009.
4. De Oliveira Bizarria, C.; Yoneyama, T. Prognostics and Health Monitoring for an electro-hydraulic flight
control actuator. In Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 7–14 March 2009.
5. Mintsa, H.; Member, J.; Venugopal, R. Adaptive Control of an Electrohydraulic Position Servo System. In
Proceedings of the IEEE AFRICON, Nairobi, Kenya, 23–25 September 2009.
6. Paloniitty, M.; Linjama, M. High-Linear Digital Hydraulic Valve Control by an Equal Coded Valve System
and Novel Switching Schemes. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J. Syst. Control Eng. 2018, 3, 258–269. [CrossRef]
7. Porciúncula, G.; De Negri, V.; Dias, A. Reliability of Electro-Hydraulic Equipment: Systematization and
Analysis. Proc. COBEM Int. Congress Mech. Eng. 2005, 2, 393–400.
8. Villalobos, O.; Burvill, C.; Stecki, J. Fault Diagnosis of Electrohydraulic Systems. Proc. Jfps Int. Symp. Fluid
Power 2005, 6, 658–663. [CrossRef]
9. Long, G. Comparison Study of Position Control with 2-Way and 3-Way High Speed on/off Electrohydraulic
Valves. Master’s Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2009.
10. Williamson, C.; Ivantysynova, M. Pump Mode Prediction For Four-Quadrant Velocity Control Of Valveless
Hydraulic Actuators. In Proceedings of the 7th JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, Toyama,
Japan, 11–15 September 2008.
11. Ivantysynova, M. Innovations in Pump Design-What Are Future Directions? In Proceedings of the JFPS
International Symposium on Fluid Power, Toyama, Japan, 11–15 September 2008; pp. 59–64.
12. Eggers, B.; Rahmfeld, R.; Ivantysynova, M. An Energetic Comparison Between Valveless and Valve Controlled
Active Vibration Damping for Off-Road Vehicles. Proc. Jfps Int. Symp. Fluid Power 2005, 6, 275–283. [CrossRef]
13. Andruch, J.; Lumkes, J. A hydraulic system topography with integrated energy recovery and reconfigurable
flow paths using high speed valves. In Proceedings of the 51st National Conference on Fluid Power (NCFP),
Las Vegas, NV, USA, 12–14 March 2008; pp. 649–657.
14. Opdenbosch, P.; Sadegh, N.; Book, W.; Enes, A. Auto-calibration based control for independent metering
of hydraulic actuators. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
Shanghai, China, 9–13 May 2011; pp. 153–158.
15. Guglielmino, E.; Semini, C.; Kogler, H.; Scheidl, R.; Caldwell, D. Power Hydraulics—Switched Mode Control
of Hydraulic Actuation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 18–22 October 2010; pp. 3031–3036.
16. Linjama, M.; Vilenius, M. Digital hydraulics—Towards perfect valve technology. In Proceedings of the Tenth
Scandinavian International Conference on Fluid Power, Tampere, Finland, 21–23 May 2007; pp. 2–16.
17. Tu, H.; Rannow, M.; Van De Ven, J.; Wang, M.; Li, P.; Chase, T. High Speed Rotary Pulse Width Modulated
On/Off Valve. In ASME 2007 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition; American Society
of Mechanical Engineers: Seattle, WA, USA, 11–15 November 2007; pp. 1–14.
18. Schepers, I.; Schmitz, D.; Weiler, D.; Cochoy, O.; Neumann, U. A novel model for optimizing development
and application of switching valves in closed loop control. Int. J. Fluid Power 2011, 12, 31–40. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, Q.; Yang, F.; Yang, Q.; Chen, J.; Guan, H. Experimental analysis of new high-speed pow-erful digital
solenoid valves. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 2309–2313.
20. Pindera, M.; Sun, Y.; Malosse, J.; Garcia, J. Co-Simulation Based Design and Experimental Validation of
Control Strategies for Digital Fluid Power Systems. In Proceedings of the ASME/BATH Symposium on
Fluid Power and Motion Control, Sarasota, FL, USA, 6–9 October 2013; p. V001T01A053.
21. Paloniitty, M.; Linjama, M.; Huhtala, K. Equal coded digital hydraulic valve system—Improving tracking
control with pulse frequency modulation. Procedia Eng. 2015, 106, 83–91. [CrossRef]
22. Van Varseveld, R.; Bone, G. Accurate position control of a pneumatic actuator using on/off solenoid valves.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 1997, 2, 195–204. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 889 18 of 18

23. Xu, B.; Ding, R.; Zhang, J.; Su, Q. Modeling and dynamic characteristics analysis on a three- stage
fast-response and large-flow directional valve. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 79, 187–199. [CrossRef]
24. Jackson, R.; Belger, M.; Cassaidy, K.; Kokemoor, A. CFD simulation and experimental investigation of steady
state flow force reduction in a hydraulic spool valve with machined back angles. In Proceedings of the
ASME/BATH Symposium on Fluid Power and Motion Control, Sarasota, FL, USA, 16–19 October 2017.
25. Tian, H.; Van de Ven, J. Geometric optimization of a hydraulic motor rotary valve. In Proceedings of the
ASME/BATH Symposium on Fluid Power and Motion Control, Sarasota, FL, USA, 6–9 October 2013.
26. Finesso, R.; Rundo, M. Numerical and experimental investigation on a conical poppet relief valve with flow
force compensation. Int. J. Fluid Power 2017, 18, 111–122. [CrossRef]
27. Han, M.; Liu, Y.; Wu, D.; Zhao, X.; Tan, H. A numerical investigation in characteristics of flow force under
cavitation state inside the water hydraulic poppet valves. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 2017, 111, 1–16. [CrossRef]
28. Duan, Y.; Jackson, C.; Eaton, M.; Bluck, M. An assessment of eddy viscosity models on predicting performance
parameters of valves. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2019, 342, 60–77. [CrossRef]
29. Lisowski, E.; Rajda, J. CFD analysis of pressure loss during flow by hydraulic directional control valve
constructed from logic valves. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 65, 285–291. [CrossRef]
30. Lisowski, E.; Czyzycki, W.; Rajda, J. Three dimensional CFD analysis and experimental test of flow force
acting on the spool of solenoid operated directional control valve. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 70, 220–229.
[CrossRef]
31. ISO 4411:2008(E), Hydraulic Fluid Power—Valves—Determination of Pressure Differential/Flow Characteristics
Standard; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
32. Sun Hydraulics. Performance Data, Accumulator Sense, Pump Unload Valves | Sun Hydraulics. 2019.
Available online: www.sunhydraulics.com/tech-resources/performance-data (accessed on 23 February
2019).
33. Duan, Y.; Revell, A.; Sinha, J.; Hahn, W. A study of unsteady force on the stem in a valve with different
openings. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference Maintenance Engineering, Manchester, UK,
30 August 2016; pp. 1–11.
34. Duan, Y.; Revell, A.; Sinha, J.; Hahn, W. Flow induced excitations in the high pressure steam turbine governor
valve at different openings. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Maintenance Engineering,
Manchester, UK, 5–6 September 2017; pp. 1–13.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).