I

I
n the October 2003 issue of Benchmark, there is an
article entitled Confessions of a Registered Analyst .
The article deals with the estimation of the 20 first
eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies of a 4x4 millimetre
square membrane of thickness 0.003 millimetres. Material
data is a Modulus of Elasticity of 121000 N/mm
2
, a
Poisson s Ratio of .21, and a mass density of 2.7e-9
Mg/mm
3
(or - in units we like - 2.7e9 N x sec
2
/mm
4
).
The boundar y conditions are clamped edges. Among
other things, the (anonymous) author compares the
computed eigenfrequencies for the first (2122 Hz) and
fif th (7761 Hz) modes with the analytical solutions for the
eigenfrequencies for various discretisations. It is shown
that excellent agreement with the analytical solution can
be obtained, given that the modelling is per formed with
insight and care.
For the simulation referred to, it is implied that the
membrane is situated in absolute vacuum. Looking at its
material properties and the dimensions, we felt that
different eigenfrequencies and mode shapes will be
obser ved if the membrane is supposed to be located in air
and not in vacuum. Also, we thought it would be
interesting to know what the eigenfrequencies would be if
the air at one side of the membrane would be moving, say
at a speed of 40m/sec. So, we decided to investigate the
supposed frequency shif ts. This article deals with our
approach to the problem and our findings.
Below, we briefly describe the tools we used for the study
and the model(s). Then we discuss the results for air at
zero velocity and for air at 40m/sec with a description of
the physics of the problem. Af ter that, we discuss related
problems and concepts in LINFLOW
TM
. Finally, we give
some exampl es of engi neeri ng probl ems where
aeroelastic effects should be considered.
T Tool s ool s
The main tool utilized for this study is LINFLOW. LINFLOW
is based on the Boundar y Element Method ( BEM ). The
LINFLOW Boundar y Elements have been designed to
solve the velocity potential equation for steady and
unsteady fluid dynamics. The unsteady flow is solved in
the frequency domain assuming harmonic motion. The
f or mul at i on i s such t hat compressi bl e as wel l as
incompressible fluids may be accounted for.
In the case at hand, we are dealing with an assumed fluid-
structure interaction ( FSI ) problem. In LINFLOW, this
class of problems is solved as an equilibrium problem
f or mul at ed as an ei genval ue probl em i n general
coordinates. The equilibrium problem can (somewhat
inaccurately) be described as equilibrium between the
dynamics of the fluid and structural eigenmodes .
LINFLOW can utilize the eigenmodes from any structural
analysis program; for the study reported here, we utilized
ANSYS. The reason for choosing ANSYS (apart from its
excellent reputation) was the tight integration that exists
between ANSYS and LINFLOW.
The structural model is based on a grid of 26 by 26 higher
order solid elements. The reason for choosing solid
elements and not shells was the assumption of fluid (i.e.
air) acting on both sides of the membrane. LINFLOW will
not handle this unless solid elements are utilized because
of coincident elements.
R Resul t s and Physi cs of t he P esul t s and Physi cs of t he Pr obl em r obl em
The eigenfrequencies obtained in ANSYS are shown in
Table 1 together with the values in the reference and the
findings for air (at rest) and air at 40m/sec. The results
indicate that our feeling that the influence of air would be
pronounced was correct. It should be mentioned that we
did not fine-tune the structural model to compute the
theoretical eigenfrequencies with great accuracy (with a
finer mesh ANSYS came ver y close to the theoretical
values) in order to reduce running time in LINFLOW to a
few minutes.
Figures 1 10 show the mode shapes as contour plots of
the absolute displacements for modes 1 to 4 in vacuum,
for modes 1 to 4 in air, for modes 1 4 in air at a velocity
of 40 m/sec at one side of the membrane, and z-
displacement plots of modes 2 and 4 for the latter case.
From the plots it can be seen that two mirror-symmetric
modes at 4380 Hz in vacuum are missing (modes 2 and
3 are symmetric by rotation).
The eigenfrequency of the first mode is 1856 Hz when
accounting for air, a reduction of approx. 13% compared
to being in a vacuum. Modes 2 and 3 show a reduced
eigenfrequency of approx. 9%, mode 4 shows a reduction
in frequency of approx. 7% in this case.
Educat i on & T
Educat i on & T
r ai ni ng
r ai ni ng www.nafems.org
April 2004 Page 2
Conf essi ons of T
Conf essi ons of T
wo
wo
N on- R
N on- R
egi st er
egi st er
ed Anal yst s
ed Anal yst s
Jan Christian Anker and Jari Hyvrinen of ANKER - ZEMER Engineering, Nor way, revisit an analysis described
in a previous issue of BENCHmark to explore the effect of aero-elasticity.
The changes in frequency are more pronounced
at an ai r speed of 40 m/sec. The f i rst
eigenfrequency is now 949 Hz, a reduction of
55% compared t o vacuum. The f i f t h
eigenfrequency has been computed to be 6815
Hz, a reduction of approx. 14%.
Before discussing the results as depicted in
Figures 1 14, we want to briefly touch on the
physics we are simulating. We suppose that the
physical significance of the eigenmodes of the
structure in vacuum is clear to the reader.
The physical significance of the aeroelastic modes
of structure and air at rest might not be so obvious
at a first glance, but if one considers them to be a
spring-mass system (air or aeroelastic medium)
connected to another spring- mass system (elastic
structure), the picture should become clearer.
However, an aeroelastic mode will usually be
formed by a combination of multiple structural
modes and the fluid s corresponding reaction, a
reaction that is dependant on the velocity of the
medium. The combination of modes is in most
cases not intuitive.
The structural modes in vacuum as shown at
Figures 1 4 are as expected (see confessions at
the end).
The combined modes shown at Figures 5 8 are
similar to the structural modes, and shall not be
discussed further.
Interesting are the combined modes for air at 40
m/sec (from lef t to right). Here, the influence of
the moving air is clearly visible. From Figure 13,
it can be seen that the membrane (plate) takes
the shape of a wave travelling in the direction of
the air. The only conclusion we will draw from
Figures 12 and 14, is that the shape of the
combined modes can look ver y simple, albeit they
are built up of rather complicated combinations of
aeroelastic and structural modes.
April 2004
Educat i on & T
Educat i on & T
r ai ni ng
r ai ni ng www.nafems.org
Page 3
Mode Theor y Reference 1 Model in Model in Air Model in Air
(Vacuum) (Vacuum) Vacuum at 40m/sec
1 2122 2130 2139 1856 949
2 - - 4380 3999 3226
3 - - 4380 3999 3867
4 - - 6495 6034 5768
5 7761 7948 7382 6815
Table 1: Eigenfrequencies in [ Hz]
The changes in frequency are more pronounced at an air speed of 40m/sec. The first eigenfrequency is now 949 Hz, a
reduction of 55% compared to vacuum. The fif th eigenfrequency has been computed to be 6815 Hz, a reduction of approx.
14%.
Fig. 1: Mode 1; Vacuum Fig. 2: Mode 2; Vacuum
Fig. 3: Mode 3; Vacuum Fig. 4: Mode 4; Vacuum
Fig. 5: Mode 1; Air at v = 0 m/sec Fig. 6: Mode 2; Air at v = 0 m/sec
Fig. 7: Mode 3; Air at v = 0 m/sec Fig. 8: Mode 4; Air at v = 0 m/sec
www.nafems.org
April 2004 Page 4
R Rel at ed P el at ed Pr obl ems and Concept s r obl ems and Concept s
i n LI NFL i n LI NFLOW OW
A related problem that is easy for the reader to study is the
following (the authors will assume no liability whatsoever
with respect to the suggested study): Roll down the
window in your car and mount a relatively thin piece of
plastic in the opening (car at rest! ). Now start driving at
an increasingly higher speed and you will see that with
increasing speed, it becomes easier to make the plastic
vibrate.
Other related problems are vibrations of pipes and ducts
due to internal flow, flutter of panels, vibrations of
submerged structures, vibrations of propellers, etc.
Exampl es Exampl es
The tools and methods mentioned here can be used for
many classes of problems, ranging from fluid flow via
fluid-structure interaction to acoustics in flowing media.
We will introduce only two examples.
The first example is a ventilation duct. In Figure 15, one
of the aeroelastic modes is shown. This mode is a
combination of structural modes and the corresponding
response of the fluid. Determining the aeroelastic modes
is important for the prediction of noise due to instabilities.
In this particular case LINFLOW predicted that a velocity
of approx. 15 m/sec. would lead to vibrations, confirming
what was obser ved.
The second example is a ventilation fan. The fan was to
be optimized with respect to vibrations (and consequently
wi t h respect t o noi se). The comput ed aeroel ast i c
response agreed extremely well with measurements, and
t he desi gn of t he f an bl ade coul d be successf ul l y
optimized. Figure 16 shows one of the aeroelastic modes.
Conf essi ons Conf essi ons
The authors have some confessions to make:
We have not checked the analytical solutions for the
eigenfrequencies of our model in vacuum; this should
always be done (however, we have used various models to
verif y the results).
If you look at the modal plots shown in Figures 2 and 3,
you will notice that the modes are cyclic symmetric. Two
other mode shapes can be generated by mirroring of
modes 2 and 3, corresponding to 4 modes at 4 identical
eigenvalues, however, only two eigenvalues were found.
As stated above, an element mesh of 26x26 elements was
utilized. Now Figures 17 and 18 show the modes for a
25x25 mesh. Here, we find modes that are symmetric
Educat i on & T
Educat i on & T
r ai ni ng
r ai ni ng
Fig. 9: Mode 1; Air at v = 40 m/sec Fig. 10: Mode 2; Air at v = 40 m/sec
Fig. 11: Mode 3; Air at v = 40 m/sec Fig. 12: Mode 4; Air at v = 40 m/sec
Fig. 13: Mode 2; v = 40 m/sec (z-disp.)
Fig. 14: Mode 4; v = 40 m/sec (z-disp.)
April 2004
www.nafems.org
Page 5
about the diagonal of the plate; a mode-shape can be
created from the other by a rotation and will remain the
same if it is mirrored about the diagonal. The difference
in eigenfrequencies is not significant, a 26x26 mesh gives
an eigenfrequency of 4380 Hz, the 25x25 mesh an
eigenfrequency of 4369 Hz.
Our computations in LINFLOW are hence based on
eigenmodes which are not fully resolved. However, our
experiences with LINFLOW indicate that the results should
be fairly accurate, albeit with inaccurate eigenmodes.
We have not undertaken any attempt to verif y the results
provided by LINFLOW. The methods used in LINFLOW
have of course been verified against experimental and
analytical results during the development off the tools.
However, we think that we have demonstrated that you
might get surprising results when you account for fluid-
structure interaction when calculating eigenfrequencies.
R Ref er ence ef er ence
1. Confessions of an RA,
BENCHmark October 2003,
NAFEMS
Cont act
Jan Christ ian Anker
ANKER - ZEMER Engineering
E jc.anker@anker-zemer.no
The essential concepts in LINFLOW (related
to this article) can be summarized as follows:
Boundar y Element Met hod
Inviscid and irrot at ional f low
Velocit y pot ent ial solut ion
Compressible f low
Incompressible f low
St eady f low
Harmonic f low
Fluid-St ruct ure Int eract ion
Aeroelast ic st abilit y & response
Educat i on & T
Educat i on & T
r ai ni ng
r ai ni ng
Fig. 15 Aeroelastic modes of Duct
Fig. 16: Fan (Courtesy of ABB Ventilation)
Fig. 17 Structural Mode # 2, 25x25 Mesh
Fig. 18: Structural Mode # 3, 25x25 Mesh