A comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of metal static seals

Abstract

A comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of a metal static seal comprises the following steps: firstly, simulating the metal static seal and extracting simulation data; then calculating evaluation target parameters and normalizing the evaluation target parameters; then calculating comprehensive evaluation indicators: drawing a comprehensive evaluation graph based on the normalized parameters, and calculating the area value of the comprehensive evaluation graph, which is used as a comprehensive scoring value for the sealing effect; finally, performing a comprehensive evaluation analysis of the sealing effect; for a single group of simulations, requiring the comprehensive scoring value to be greater than 0, or requiring all normalized parameters to be greater than zero; for multiple groups of simulations, analyzing each group of data separately, and selecting the one with the largest comprehensive scoring value as the optimal combination; the present invention does not need to consider the weight of each influencing factor, is suitable for analyzing the influence of multiple geometric parameters and operating parameters on the sealing effect, and can effectively optimize the sealing effect of the metal static seal.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the technical field of metal static seals, and in particular relates to a comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of metal static seals. Background Art

[0002] Metal seals are critical components in many high-tech fields, such as aerospace, nuclear energy, and deep-sea applications. As the operating environments of mechanical equipment become increasingly demanding, characterized by high temperatures, high pressures, and alternating loads, the sealing performance requirements for metal seals are becoming increasingly stringent. To improve the sealing performance of metal seals, effective evaluation of their sealing effectiveness is necessary. Leakage rate is the most direct and effective indicator of sealing effectiveness. However, leakage testing is costly and time-consuming, making it unsuitable for early-stage design optimization.

[0003] Currently, the sealing effectiveness of metal static seals is primarily measured using indicators such as contact pressure, sealing surface roughness, sealing surface pressure ratio, and sealing surface width. On the one hand, a single indicator evaluation and analysis cannot be comprehensive and effective, and higher is not always better for a single indicator. For example, excessive contact stress can cause fatigue damage to the metal seal ring. On the other hand, when using multiple indicators for analysis, the influence of each indicator on the sealing effect is not clearly defined, making comprehensive evaluation and analysis impossible. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In order to overcome the shortcomings of the above-mentioned prior art, the purpose of the present invention is to provide a comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of metal static seals, which does not need to consider the weight of each influencing factor. It is suitable for analyzing the influence of various geometric parameters and operating parameters on the sealing effect, and can effectively optimize the sealing effect of metal static seals.

[0005] In order to achieve the above object, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0006] A comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of a metal static seal comprises the following steps:

[0007] Step 1, metal static seal simulation: set the metal static seal simulation according to the actual situation and perform simulation under m groups of parameters, m ≥ 1;

[0008] Step 2: Extract simulation data: Extract simulation result data of n evaluation targets E from the simulation results, n≥3, E1 is the height after rebound H s , E2 is the initial contact pressure P0, E3 is the contact pressure P1 during operation;

[0009] Step 3: Calculate the evaluation target parameters X(E1), X(E2)...X(E n): Calculate the evaluation target parameters based on the simulation data extracted in step 2. When the evaluation targets are E1, E2, and E3, the evaluation target parameters X(E1) are the rebound rate s, X(E2) are the initial specific pressure ratio q0, and X(E3) are the specific pressure ratio q1 during operation. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0010]

[0011]

[0012]

[0013] Among them, H0 is the initial height of the sealing ring, H s is the height of the sealing ring after rebound, e is the compression amount, P w For work pressure;

[0014] Step 4: normalizing the evaluation target parameters: normalizing the evaluation target parameters obtained in step 3;

[0015] Step 5: Calculate the comprehensive evaluation index: According to the normalized parameters in step 4, * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3)……X * (E n ) as the axis, draw a comprehensive evaluation graph, and calculate the area value of the comprehensive evaluation graph, which is used as the comprehensive scoring value of the sealing effect. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0016] W=S-S0 (4)

[0017] Where W is the comprehensive score; S is the n points X in the comprehensive evaluation graph * (E1), X * (E2)……X * (E n ) is the area of the figure enclosed; S0 is the area of the figure enclosed by the zero points of each axis in the comprehensive evaluation figure;

[0018] Step 6, comprehensive evaluation and analysis of sealing effect: Analyze the comprehensive score obtained in step 5. For a single group of simulations, the comprehensive score is required to be greater than 0, or the normalized n parameters X are required to be * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3)……X * (E n ) are all greater than zero; for multiple groups of simulations, each group of data is analyzed separately, and the one with the largest comprehensive score is selected as the optimal combination.

[0019] In addition to E1, E2, and E3, other evaluation objectives can be added in step 2 according to actual needs.

[0020] The step 3 is normalized by using a method such as linear function normalization, logarithmic normalization, exponential normalization or trigonometric function normalization.

[0021] The evaluation targets are E1, E2, and E3, that is, when n=3, the linear function normalization is processed as follows:

[0022] For the data obtained from a single simulation (m=1), normalization is performed as follows:

[0023]

[0024]

[0025]

[0026] Among them, X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3) are the evaluation target parameters to be normalized, X * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3) is the normalized parameter, and the normalized parameter range is [-1,1].

[0027] For data obtained from multiple simulations (m>1), the normalization formula is as follows:

[0028]

[0029]

[0030]

[0031] Among them, X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3) are the evaluation target parameters to be normalized, X * m (E1), X * m (E2), X * m (E3) is the normalized parameter, X(E2) min and X(E2) max are the maximum and minimum values of X(E2) (initial specific pressure ratio), X(E3) min and X(E3) max are the maximum and minimum values of X(E3) (pressure ratio during operation), and the normalized parameter range is [-1, 1].

[0032] In the step 6, for multiple groups of simulations, each group of data is analyzed separately, and different combinations of dimensional parameters and operating parameters are set according to the orthogonal test table. The normalized comprehensive score value is subjected to orthogonal test analysis to obtain the influence of each parameter on the sealing effect, give the best test combination, and analyze whether each dimensional parameter and operating parameter and their interaction have a significant impact on the sealing effect.

[0033] The present invention provides a multi-objective comprehensive evaluation of the sealing performance of metal static seals, avoiding the problem of weight distribution for multiple objectives and enabling rapid and rational optimization of the operating and dimensional parameters of metal seals. Beyond metal static seals, this method can also be applied to multi-objective evaluations in other fields. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0034] Figure 1 Flowchart of the present invention.

[0035] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the sealing ring simulated in Examples 1 and 2 of the present invention.

[0036] Figure 3 Schematic diagram of calculating comprehensive evaluation indicators in Examples 1 and 2 of the present invention.

[0037] Figure 4 This is the normalized comprehensive evaluation graph in Example 1 of the present invention.

[0038] Figure 5 This is a summary diagram of the comprehensive scoring values of each group of simulations in Example 2 of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0039] The present invention is described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0040] Example 1 analyzes the sealing effect under one working condition (in this example, m=1, n=3).

[0041] like Figure 1 As shown, a comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of a metal static seal includes the following steps:

[0042] Step 1, metal static seal simulation: Set the metal static seal simulation according to the actual situation, and perform simulation under a single set of parameters (m=1). Figure 2 The seal shown;

[0043] Step 2, extract simulation data: Extract the simulation result data of three evaluation targets E from the simulation results, where E1 is the height H after rebound s , E2 is the initial contact pressure P0, E3 is the contact pressure P1 during operation;

[0044] Step 3, calculate the evaluation target parameters X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3): Based on the simulation data extracted in step 2, calculate the evaluation target parameters X(E1) (rebound rate s), X(E2) (initial specific pressure ratio q1), and X(E3) (specific pressure ratio q2 during operation). The calculation formula is as follows:

[0045]

[0046]

[0047]

[0048] Among them, H0 is the initial height of the sealing ring, H s is the height of the sealing ring after rebound, e is the compression amount, P w For work pressure;

[0049] Step 4: Normalize the target parameters: Normalize the evaluation target parameters obtained in step 3 using linear function normalization. The specific method of linear function normalization is as follows:

[0050]

[0051]

[0052]

[0053] Among them, X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3) are the evaluation target parameters to be normalized, X * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3) is the normalized parameter, and the normalized parameter range is [-1,1];

[0054] Step 5: Calculate the comprehensive evaluation index: According to the normalized parameters in step 4, * (E1) (normalized rebound rate), X * (E2) (normalized initial specific pressure ratio) and X * (E3) (normalized working pressure ratio) is used as the three axes to draw a comprehensive evaluation graph, and calculate the area value of the comprehensive evaluation graph, which is used as the comprehensive score value of the sealing effect. Figure 3 , the calculation formula is as follows:

[0055] W=S-S0 (4)

[0056] Among them, W is the comprehensive score value; S is the X in the comprehensive evaluation graph * (E1), X * (E2) and X* (E3) The area of the triangle formed by the three points; S0 is the triangle formed by the zero point of the three axes in the comprehensive evaluation graph; Figure 4 is the comprehensive evaluation graph obtained after normalization in this embodiment;

[0057] Step 6, comprehensive evaluation and analysis of sealing effect: Analyze the comprehensive score obtained in step 5. In order to obtain a better sealing effect, for a single group of simulations, the comprehensive score is generally required to be greater than 0, and the three normalized parameters X are strictly required to be * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3) are all greater than zero, and the normalized X in this embodiment * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3) are all greater than zero, and the overall sealing effect is relatively good.

[0058] Example 2 analyzes the sealing effect under various combinations of working parameters and size parameters (in this example, m=16, n=3).

[0059] like Figure 1 As shown, a comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of a metal static seal includes the following steps:

[0060] Step 1, Metal static seal simulation: Select different seal ring size parameter combinations and perform multiple sets of seal simulations. Figure 2 The seal shown;

[0061] Step 2, extract simulation data: Extract simulation result data of three evaluation targets E from the simulation results, where E1 is the height H after rebound s , E2 is the initial contact pressure P0, E3 is the contact pressure P1 during operation;

[0062] Step 3, calculate the evaluation target parameters X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3): Based on the simulation data extracted in step 2, calculate the evaluation target parameters X(E1) (rebound rate s), X(E2) (initial specific pressure ratio q1), and X(E3) (specific pressure ratio q2 during operation). The calculation formula is as follows:

[0063]

[0064]

[0065]

[0066] Among them, H0 is the initial height of the sealing ring, H s is the height of the sealing ring after rebound, e is the compression amount, P wFor work pressure;

[0067] Step 4: Normalize the evaluation target parameters: Normalize the evaluation target parameters obtained in step 3. For multiple sets of simulation data, use linear function normalization for normalization. The specific formula for linear function normalization is as follows:

[0068]

[0069]

[0070]

[0071] Among them, X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3) are the parameters to be normalized, X * m (E1), X * m (E2), X * m (E3) is the normalized parameter, X(E2) min and X(E2) max are the maximum and minimum values of X(E2) (initial specific pressure ratio), X(E3) min and X(E3) max are the maximum and minimum values of X(E3) (pressure ratio during operation), and the normalized parameter range is [-1, 1];

[0072] Step 5: Calculate the comprehensive evaluation index; according to the normalized parameters in step 4, use X * m (E1) (normalized rebound rate), X * m (E2) (normalized initial specific pressure ratio) and X * m (E3) (normalized working pressure ratio) is used as the three axes to draw a comprehensive evaluation graph, and calculate the area value of the comprehensive evaluation graph, which is used as the comprehensive score value of the sealing effect. Figure 3 , the calculation formula is as follows:

[0073] W=S-S0 (4)

[0074] Among them, W is the comprehensive score value; S is the X in the comprehensive evaluation graph * m (E1), X * m (E2) and X * m (E3) The area of the triangle formed by the three points; S0 is the area of the triangle formed by the zero point of the three axes in the comprehensive evaluation graph; Figure 5 is the comprehensive simulation score of each group in this embodiment;

[0075] Step 6, comprehensive evaluation and analysis of sealing effect; analyze the comprehensive score value obtained in step 5. In order to obtain a better sealing effect, the comprehensive score value is generally required to be greater than 0. More strictly, the three normalized parameters X * m (E1), X * m (E2), X * m (E3) are all greater than zero. This embodiment can refer to Example 1, and conduct a comprehensive evaluation on the sealing effect of each group of simulations separately, and select the one with the largest comprehensive score as the optimal combination. Furthermore, the dimensional parameters and operating parameters can be matched according to the orthogonal test table, and multiple groups of simulations can be performed. The comprehensive score values after simulation can be analyzed by orthogonal test to obtain the influence of each dimensional parameter and operating condition parameter on the sealing effect, give the best test combination, and analyze whether each parameter and its interaction have a significant impact on the sealing effect.

Claims

1. A comprehensive evaluation method for the sealing effect of a metal static seal, characterized in that: The steps include: Step 1, metal static seal simulation: set the metal static seal simulation according to the actual situation and perform simulation under m groups of parameters, m ≥ 1; Step 2: Extract simulation data: Extract simulation result data of n evaluation targets E from the simulation results, n≥3, E1 is the height after rebound H s , E2 is the initial contact pressure P0, E3 is the contact pressure P1 during operation; Step 3: Calculate the evaluation target parameters X(E1), X(E2)...X(E n ): Calculate the evaluation target parameters based on the simulation data extracted in step 2. When the evaluation targets are E1, E2, and E3, the evaluation target parameters X(E1) are the rebound rate s, X(E2) are the initial specific pressure ratio q1, and X(E3) are the specific pressure ratio q2 during operation. The calculation formula is as follows: Among them, H0 is the initial height of the sealing ring, H s is the height of the sealing ring after rebound, e is the compression amount, P w For work pressure; Step 4: normalizing the evaluation target parameters: normalizing the evaluation target parameters obtained in step 3; Step 5: Calculate the comprehensive evaluation index: According to the normalized parameters in step 4, * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3)……X * (E n ) as the axis, draw a comprehensive evaluation graph, and calculate the area value of the comprehensive evaluation graph, which is used as the comprehensive scoring value of the sealing effect. The calculation formula is as follows: W=S-S0 (4) Where W is the comprehensive score; S is the n points X in the comprehensive evaluation graph * (E1), X * (E2)……X * (E n ) is the area of the figure enclosed; S0 is the area of the figure enclosed by the zero points of each axis in the comprehensive evaluation figure; Step 6, comprehensive evaluation and analysis of sealing effect: Analyze the comprehensive score obtained in step 5. For a single group of simulations, the comprehensive score is required to be greater than 0, or the normalized n parameters X are required to be * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3)……X * (E n ) are all greater than zero; for multiple groups of simulations, each group of data is analyzed separately, and the one with the largest comprehensive score is selected as the optimal combination.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein: In addition to E1, E2, and E3, other evaluation objectives can be added in step 2 according to actual needs.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein: The step 4 is normalized by using linear function normalization, logarithmic normalization, exponential normalization or trigonometric function normalization.

4. The method according to claim 3, wherein: The evaluation targets are E1, E2, and E3, that is, when n=3, the linear function normalization is processed as follows: For a single simulation, m = 1, the obtained data are normalized as follows: Among them, X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3) are the evaluation target parameters to be normalized, X * (E1), X * (E2), X * (E3) is the normalized parameter, and the normalized parameter range is [-1,1].

5. The method according to claim 3, wherein: The evaluation targets are E1, E2, and E3, that is, when n=3, for multiple simulations, m>1, the linear function normalization formula for the obtained data is as follows: Among them, X(E1), X(E2), and X(E3) are the evaluation target parameters to be normalized, X * m (E1), X * m (E2), X * m (E3) is the normalized parameter, X(E2) min and X(E2) max They are X(E2) which is the minimum and maximum value of the initial pressure ratio, X(E3) min and X(E3) max They are X(E3), which is the minimum and maximum value of the specific pressure ratio during operation. The normalized parameter range is [-1,1].

6. The method according to claim 1, wherein: In the step 6, for multiple groups of simulations, each group of data is analyzed separately, specifically: according to the orthogonal test table, different combinations of dimensional parameters and operating parameters are set, and the normalized comprehensive score values are subjected to orthogonal test analysis to obtain the influence of each parameter on the sealing effect, give the best test combination, and analyze whether each dimensional parameter and operating parameter and their interaction have a significant impact on the sealing effect.

Images