Abaqus
provides a set of elements for modeling a fluid medium undergoing small
pressure variations and interface conditions to couple these acoustic elements
to a structural model. These elements are provided to model a variety of
phenomena involving dynamic interactions between fluid and solid media.
Steady-state harmonic (linear) response analysis can be performed for a
coupled acoustic-structural system, such as the study of the noise level in a
vehicle. The steady-state procedure is based on direct solution of the coupled
complex harmonic equations, as described in
Direct steady-state dynamic analysis;
on a modal-based procedure, as described in
Steady-state linear dynamic analysis;
or on a subspace-based procedure, as described in
Subspace-based steady-state dynamic analysis.
Mode-based linear transient dynamic analysis is also available, as described in
Modal dynamic analysis.
The acoustic fluid elements can also be used with nonlinear response
analysis (implicit or explicit direct integration) procedures: whether such
results are useful depends on the applicability of the small pressure change
assumption in the fluid. Often in coupled fluid-solid problems the fluid forces
in this linear regime are high enough that nonlinear response of the structure
needs to be considered. For example, a ship subjected to underwater incident
wave loads due to an explosion may experience plastic deformation or large
motions of internal machinery may occur.
The acoustic medium in
Abaqus
may have velocity-dependent dissipation, caused by fluid viscosity or by flow
within a resistive porous matrix material. In addition, rather general boundary
conditions are provided for the acoustic medium, including impedance, or
“reactive,” boundaries.
The possible conditions at the surface of the acoustic medium are:
Prescribed pressure (degree of freedom 8) at the boundary nodes.
(Boundary conditions can be used to specify pressure at any node in the model.)
Prescribed inward normal derivative of pressure per unit density of the
acoustic medium through the use of a concentrated load on degree of freedom 8
of a boundary node. If the applied load has zero magnitude (that is, if no
concentrated load or other boundary condition is present), the inward normal
derivative of pressure (and normal fluid particle acceleration) is zero, which
means that the default boundary condition of the acoustic medium is a rigid,
fixed wall (Neumann condition).
Acoustic-structural coupling defined either by using surface-based
coupling procedures (see
Surface-based acoustic-structural medium interaction)
or by placing ASI coupling elements on the interface between the acoustic medium
and a structure.
An impedance condition, representing an absorbing boundary between the
acoustic medium and a rigid wall or a vibrating structure or representing
radiation to an infinite exterior.
An incident wave loading, representing the inward normal derivative of
pressure per unit density of the acoustic medium resulting from the arrival of
a specified wave. The formulation of this loading case is discussed in
Loading due to an incident dilatational wave field.
It is applicable to problems involving blast loads and to acoustic scattering
problems.
The flow resistance and the properties of the absorbing boundaries may be
functions of frequency in steady-state response analysis but are assumed to be
constant in the direct integration procedure. This section defines the
formulation used in these elements.
Acoustic equations
The equilibrium equation for small motions of a compressible, adiabatic
fluid with velocity-dependent momentum losses is taken to be
where p is the excess pressure in the fluid (the
pressure in excess of any static pressure);
is the spatial position of the fluid particle;
is the fluid particle velocity;
is the fluid particle acceleration;
is the density of the fluid;
is the “volumetric drag” (force per unit volume per velocity); and
are i independent field variables such as temperature,
humidity of air, or salinity of water on which
and
may depend (see
Acoustic Medium).
The d'Alembert term has been written without convection on the assumption that
there is no steady flow of the fluid. This is usually considered sufficiently
accurate for steady fluid velocities up to Mach 0.1.
The constitutive behavior of the fluid is assumed to be inviscid, linear,
and compressible, so
where
is the bulk modulus of the fluid.
For an acoustic medium capable of undergoing cavitation, the absolute
pressure (sum of the static pressure and the excess dynamic pressure) cannot
drop below the specified cavitation limit. When the absolute pressure drops to
this limit value, the fluid is assumed to undergo free expansion without a
corresponding drop in the dynamic pressure. The pressure would rebuild in the
acoustic medium once the free expansion that took place during the cavitation
is reversed sufficiently to reduce the volumetric strain to the level at the
cavitation limit. The constitutive behavior for an acoustic medium capable of
undergoing cavitation can be stated as
where a pseudopressure ,
a measure of the volumetric strain, is defined as
where
is the fluid cavitation limit and
is the initial acoustic static pressure. A total wave formulation is used for a
nonlinear acoustic medium undergoing cavitation. This formulation is very
similar to the scattered wave formulation presented below except that the
pseudopressure, defined as the product of the bulk modulus and the compressive
volumetric strain, plays the role of the material state variable instead of the
acoustic excess pressure. The acoustic excess pressure is readily available
from this pseudopressure subject to the cavitation condition.
Physical boundary conditions in acoustic analysis
Acoustic fields are strongly dependent on the conditions at the boundary of
the acoustic medium. The boundary of a region of acoustic medium that obeys
Equation 1
and
Equation 2
can be divided into subregions S on which the following
conditions are imposed:
,
where the value of the acoustic pressure p is
prescribed.
,
where we prescribe the normal derivative of the acoustic medium. This
condition also prescribes the motion of the fluid particles and can be used to
model acoustic sources, rigid walls (baffles), incident wave fields, and
symmetry planes.
,
the “reactive” acoustic boundary, where there is a prescribed linear
relationship between the fluid acoustic pressure and its normal derivative.
Quite a few physical effects can be modeled in this manner: in particular, the
effect of thin layers of material, whose own motions are unimportant, placed
between acoustic media and rigid baffles. An example is the carpet glued to the
floor of a room or car interior that absorbs and reflects acoustic waves. This
thin layer of material provides a “reactive surface,” or impedance boundary
condition, to the acoustic medium. This type of boundary condition is also
referred to as an imposed impedance, admittance, or a “Dirichlet to Neumann
map.”
,
the “radiating” acoustic boundary. Often, acoustic media extend sufficiently
far from the region of interest that they can be modeled as infinite in extent.
In such cases it is convenient to truncate the computational region and apply a
boundary condition to simulate waves passing exclusively outward from the
computational region.
,
where the motion of an acoustic medium is directly coupled to the motion of
a solid. On such an acoustic-structural boundary the acoustic and structural
media have the same displacement normal to the boundary, but the tangential
motions are uncoupled.
,
an acoustic-structural boundary, where the displacements are linearly
coupled but not necessarily identically equal due to the presence of a
compliant or reactive intervening layer. This layer induces an impedance
condition between the relative normal velocity between acoustic fluid and solid
structure and the acoustic pressure. It is analogous to a spring and dashpot
interposed between the fluid and solid particles. As implemented in
Abaqus,
an impedance boundary condition surface does not model any mass associated with
the reactive lining; if such a mass exists, it should be incorporated into the
boundary of the structure.
,
a boundary between acoustic fluids of possibly differing material
properties. On such an interface, displacement continuity requires that the
normal forces per unit mass on the fluid particles be equal. This quantity is
the natural boundary traction in
Abaqus,
so this condition is enforced automatically during element assembly. This is
also true in one-dimensional analysis (i.e., piping or ducts), where the
relevant acoustic properties include the cross-sectional areas of the elements.
Consequently, fluid-fluid boundaries do not require special treatment in
Abaqus.
Formulation for direct integration transient dynamics
In
Abaqus
the finite element formulations are slightly different in direct integration
transient and steady-state or modal analyses, primarily with regard to the
treatment of the volumetric drag loss parameter and spatial variations of the
constitutive parameters. To derive a symmetric system of ordinary differential
equations for implicit integration, some approximations are made in the
transient case that are not needed in steady state. For linear transient
dynamic analysis, the modal procedure can be used and is much more efficient.
To derive the partial differential equation used in direct integration
transient analysis, we divide
Equation 1
by ,
take its gradient with respect to ,
neglect the gradient of ,
and combine the result with the time derivatives of
Equation 2
to obtain the equation of motion for the fluid in terms of the fluid pressure:
The assumption that the gradient of
is small is violated where there are discontinuities in the quantity
(for example, on the boundary between two elements that have a different
value).
Variational statement
An equivalent weak form for the equation of motion,
Equation 3,
is obtained by introducing an arbitrary variational field,
,
and integrating over the fluid:
Green's theorem allows this to be rewritten as
Assuming that p is prescribed on
,
the equilibrium equation,
Equation 1,
is used on the remainder of the boundary to relate the pressure gradient to the
motion of the boundary:
Using this equation, the term
is eliminated from
Equation 4
to produce
where, for convenience, the boundary “traction” term
has been introduced.
Except for the imposed pressure on ,
all the other boundary conditions described above can be formulated in terms of
.
This term has dimensions of acceleration; in the absence of volumetric drag
this boundary traction is equal to the inward acceleration of the particles of
the acoustic medium:
When volumetric drag is present, the boundary traction is the normal
derivative of the pressure field, divided by the true mass density: a force per
unit mass of fluid. Consequently, when volumetric drag exists in a transient
acoustic model, a unit of
yields a lower local volumetric acceleration, due to drag losses.
In direct integration transient dynamics we enforce the acoustic boundary
conditions as follows:
On ,
p is prescribed and .
On
,
where we prescribe the normal derivative of the acoustic pressure per unit
density:
In the absence of volumetric drag in the medium, this enforces a value of
fluid particle acceleration, .
An imposed
can be used to model the oscillations of a rigid plate or body exciting a
fluid, for example. A special case of this boundary condition is
,
which represents a rigid immobile boundary. As mentioned above, if the medium
has nonzero volumetric drag, a unit of
imposed at the boundary will result in a relatively lower imposed particle
acceleration. Incident wave fields on a boundary of a fluid are modeled with a
that varies in space and time, corresponding to the effect of the arrival of
the wave on the boundary. See
Loading due to an incident dilatational wave field.
On
,
the reactive boundary between the acoustic medium and a rigid baffle, we
apply a condition that relates the velocity of the acoustic medium to the
pressure and rate of change of pressure:
where
and
are user-prescribed parameters at the boundary. This equation is in the form of
an admittance relation; the impedance expression is simply the inverse. The
layer of material, in admittance form, acts as a spring and dashpot in series
distributed between the acoustic medium and the rigid wall. The spring and
dashpot parameters are
and ,
respectively; they are per unit area of the acoustic boundary. Using this
definition for the fluid velocity, the boundary tractions in the variational
statement become
On ,
the radiating boundary, we apply the radiation boundary condition by
specifying the corresponding impedance:
the acoustic-structural interface, we apply the acoustic-structural
interface condition by equating displacement of the fluid and solid, which
enforces the condition
where
is the displacement of the structure. In the presence of volumetric drag it
follows that the acoustic boundary traction coupling fluid to solid is
In
Abaqus/Standard
the formulation of the transient coupled problem would be made nonsymmetric by
the presence of the term .
In the great majority of practical applications the acoustic tractions
associated with volumetric drag are small compared to those associated with
fluid inertia,
so this term is ignored in transient analysis:
On ,
the mixed impedance boundary and acoustic-structural boundary, we apply a
condition that relates the relative outward velocity between the acoustic
medium and the structure to the pressure and rate of change of pressure:
This relative normal velocity represents a rate of compression (or
extension) of the intervening layer. Applying this equation to the definition
of ,
we obtain for the transient case
This expression for
is the sum of its definitions for
and .
In the steady-state case the effect of volumetric drag on the structural
displacement term in the acoustic traction is included:
These definitions for the boundary term, ,
are introduced into
Equation 6
to give the final variational statement for the acoustic medium (this is the
equivalent of the virtual work statement for the structure):
The structural behavior is defined by the virtual work equation,
where
is the stress at a point in the structure, p is the
pressure acting on the fluid-structural interface,
is the outward normal to the structure,
is the density of the material,
is the mass proportional damping factor (part of the Rayleigh damping
assumption for the structure),
is the acceleration of a point in the structure,
is the surface traction applied to the structure,
is a variational displacement field, and
is the strain variation that is compatible with .
For simplicity in this equation all other loading terms except the fluid
pressure and surface traction
have been neglected: they are imposed in the usual way.
The discretized finite element equations
Equation 14
and
Equation 15
define the variational problem for the coupled fields
and p. The problem is discretized by introducing
interpolation functions: in the fluid ,
up to the number of pressure nodes and in the structure
,
up to the number of displacement degrees of freedom. In these and the following
equations we assume summation over the superscripts that refer to the degrees
of freedom of the discretized model. We also use the superscripts
,
to refer to pressure degrees of freedom in the fluid and
,
to refer to displacement degrees of freedom in the structure. We use a Galerkin
method for the structural system; the variational field has the same form as
the displacement: .
For the fluid we use
but with the subsequent Petrov-Galerkin substitution
The new function
makes the single variational equation obtained from summing
Equation 14
and
Equation 15
dimensionally consistent:
where, for simplicity, we have introduced the following definitions:
where
is the strain interpolator. This equation defines the discretized model. We see
that the volumetric drag-related terms are “mass-like”; i.e., proportional to
the fluid element mass matrix.
The term
is the nodal right-hand-side term for the acoustical degree of freedom
,
or the applied “force” on this degree of freedom. This term is obtained by
integration of the normal derivative of pressure per unit density of the
acoustic medium over the surface area tributary to a boundary node.
In the case of coupled systems where the forces on the structure due to the
fluid—
are very small compared to the rest of the structural forces—the system can be
solved in a “sequentially coupled” manner. The structural equations can be
solved with the
term omitted; i.e., in an analysis without fluid coupling. Subsequently, the
fluid equations can be solved, with
imposed as a boundary condition. This two-step analysis is less expensive and
advantageous for systems such as metal structures in air.
Time integration
The equations are integrated through time using the standard implicit (Abaqus/Standard)
and explicit (Abaqus/Explicit)
dynamic integration options. From the implicit integration operator we obtain
relations between the variations of the solution variables (here represented by
)
and their time derivatives:
The equations of evolution of the degrees of freedom can be written for the
implicit case as
The linearization of this equation is
where
and
are the corrections to the solution obtained from the Newton iteration,
is the structural stiffness matrix, and
is the structural damping matrix. These equations are symmetric if the
constituent stiffness, damping, and mass matrices are symmetric.
For explicit integration the fluid mass matrix is diagonalized in a manner
similar to the treatment of structural mass. The explicit central difference
procedure described in
Explicit dynamic analysis
is applied to the coupled system of equations.
Summary of additional approximations of the direct integration transient
formulation
As mentioned above, derivation of symmetric ordinary differential equations
in the presence of volumetric drag requires some approximations in addition to
those inherent in any finite element method. First, the spatial gradients of
the ratio of volumetric drag to mass density in the fluid are neglected. This
may be important in lossy, inhomogeneous acoustic media. Second, to maintain
symmetry, the effect of volumetric drag on the fluid-solid boundary terms is
neglected. Finally, the effect of volumetric drag on the radiation boundary
conditions is approximate. If any of these effects is expected to be
significant in an analysis, the user should realize that the results obtained
are approximate.
Formulation for steady-state response using nodal degrees of
freedom
The direct-solution steady-state dynamic analysis procedure is to be
preferred over the transient formulation if volumetric drag is significant.
This formulation uses the nodal degrees of freedom in the solid and acoustic
regions directly to form a large linear system of equations defining the
coupled structural-acoustic mechanics at a single frequency. If volumetric drag
effects are not significant, the mode-based procedures (see below) are
preferred because of their efficiency.
All model degrees of freedom and loads are assumed to be varying
harmonically at an angular frequency ,
so we can write
where
is the constant complex amplitude of the variable .
Thus,
We begin with the equilibrium equation
and use the harmonic time-derivative relations to obtain
We define the complex density, ,
as
and, thus, write
The equilibrium equation is now in a form where the density is complex and
the acoustic medium velocity does not enter. We divide this equation by
and combine it with the second time derivative of the constitutive law,
Equation 2,
to obtain
We have not used the assumption that the spatial gradient of
is small, as was done in the transient dynamics formulation.
Variational statement
The development of the variational statement parallels that for the case of
transient dynamics, as though the volumetric drag were absent and the density
complex. The variational statement is
Integrating by parts, we have
In steady state the boundary traction is defined as
This expression is not the Fourier transform of the boundary traction
defined above for the transient case. The steady-state definition is based on
the complex density and includes the volumetric drag effect in such a way that
it is always equal to the acceleration of the fluid particles. The application
of boundary conditions may be slightly different for some cases in steady state
due to this definition of the traction.
On ,
is prescribed, analogous to transient analysis.
On
,
we prescribe
The condition
is enforced, even in the presence of volumetric drag.
On
,
the reactive boundary between the acoustic medium and a rigid baffle, we
apply
On ,
the radiating boundary, we apply the radiation boundary condition impedance
in the same form as for the reactive boundary but with the parameters as
defined in
Equation 42
and
Equation 43.
On
,
the acoustic-structural interface, we equate the displacement of the fluid
and solid as in the transient case. However, the acoustic boundary traction
coupling fluid to solid,
can be applied without affecting the symmetry of the overall formulation.
Consequently, the acoustic tractions in the steady-state case make no
assumptions about volumetric drag.
On
,
the mixed impedance boundary and acoustic-structural boundary, the condition
results in the definition
In this case the effect of volumetric drag is included without
approximation.
The final variational statement becomes
This equation is formally identical to
Equation 4,
except for the pressure “stiffness” term, the radiation boundary conditions,
and the imposed boundary traction term. Because the volumetric drag effect is
contained in the complex density, the acoustic-structural boundary term in this
formulation does not have the limitation that the volumetric drag must be small
compared to other effects in the acoustic medium. In addition, in this
formulation the applied flux on an acoustic boundary represents the inward
acceleration of the acoustic medium, whether or not the volumetric drag is
large. Finally, the radiation boundary conditions do not make any
approximations with regard to the volumetric drag parameter.
The above equation uses the complex density, .
We manipulate it into a form that has real coefficients and an additional time
derivative through the relations
to obtain
The discretized finite element equations
Applying Galerkin's principle, the finite element equations are derived as
before. We arrive again at
Equation 17
with the same matrices except for the damping and stiffness matrices of the
acoustic elements and the surfaces that have imposed impedance conditions,
which now appear as
The matrix modeling loss to volumetric drag is proportional to the fluid
stiffness matrix in this formulation.
For steady-state harmonic response we assume that the structure undergoes
small harmonic vibrations, identified by the prefix ,
about a deformed, stressed base state, which is identified by the subscript
.
Hence, the total stress can be written in the form
where
is the stress in the base state;
is the elasticity matrix for the material;
is the stiffness proportional damping factor chosen for the material (to give
the stiffness proportional contribution to the Rayleigh damping, thus
introducing the viscous part of the material behavior); and, from the
discretization assumption,
To solve the steady-state problem, we assume that the governing equations
are satisfied in the base state, and we linearize these equations in terms of
the harmonic oscillations. For the internal force vector this yields
and
Equation 17
can be rewritten, using the time-harmonic relations, as
with
(this stiffness includes the initial stress matrix, so “stress stiffening”
and “load stiffness” effects associated with the base state stress and loads
are included) and
We have also added the “global” parts of the “structural damping” terms
and
to the equation. These damping terms model finite energy loss in the
low-frequency limit in steady-state dynamics—see
Direct steady-state dynamic analysis
and
Subspace-based steady-state dynamic analysis.
It should be noted that the acoustic “structural damping” operator inherits the
frequency dependence of the acoustic stiffness matrix caused by volumetric
drag.
We assume that the loads and (because of linearity) the response are
harmonic; hence, we can write
and
where ,
,
,
and
are the real and imaginary parts of the amplitudes of the response;
and
are the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude of the force applied to the
structure;
and
are the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude of the acoustic traction
(dimensions of volumetric acceleration) applied to the fluid; and
is the circular frequency. We substitute these equations into
Equation 23
and use the time-harmonic form of
Equation 16,
,
which yields the coupled complex linear equation system
where
and
If
is symmetric,
Equation 24
is symmetric. The system may be quite large, because the real and imaginary
parts of the structural degrees of freedom and of the pressure in the fluid all
appear in the system. This set of equations is solved for each frequency
requested in the direct-solution steady-state dynamics procedure. If damping is
absent, the user can specify that only the real matrix equation should be
factored in the analysis. Nonzero volumetric drag values
()
for the acoustic medium and nonzero
values for the impedances represent damping. As mentioned above for the
transient case, the coupled system can be split into an uncoupled structural
analysis and an acoustic analysis driven by the structural response, provided
the fluid forces on the structure are small.
Formulation for eigenvalue extraction and mode-based procedures
From the discretized equation,
Equation 17,
we can write the frequency domain problem as
where
is a natural (as opposed to forced response) frequency. The indices have been
suppressed for brevity. This system is due to
Zienkiewicz
and Newton (1969) and is used in
Abaqus
as the starting point for mode-based procedures. Suppressing any damping terms,
forcing, and any terms associated with a reactive surface,
Interpreted as a linear eigenvalue problem (where
is the eigenvalue), this equation cannot be solved directly in
Abaqus
due to the unsymmetric stiffness and mass matrices. However, it can be shown
that these equations do yield real-valued natural frequencies and modes,
suggesting that they can be rewritten in symmetric forms.
Application of the modes of
Equation 25
to form a reduced system (see below) must be done with some caution, since this
unsymmetric system has distinct left and right eigenvector sets. In particular,
the “singular modes” associated with zero frequency are of interest because
they describe the low-frequency limiting behavior of the system (or the
“rigid-body motion” in a kinematic sense) and are, therefore, essential for the
construction of an accurate projected frequency domain operator. The right
singular modes of the coupled system are
In other words, there is a “structural” singular right mode
associated with the kernel of
and an “acoustic” singular right mode
associated with the kernel of .
The left singular modes are solutions to
and are
The right acoustic and left structural singular modes are coupled, with
nontrivial fields on the structural and acoustic domains. These coupled
singular modes are a consequence of the stiffness term in
Equation 25,
and they must be computed if this system is to be projected.
An alternative frequency domain formulation, due to
Everstine
(1981), involves the substitution
and results in a formally symmetric system:
The corresponding coupled eigenproblem is quadratic, but the singular mode
structure of this system is much simpler—the left and right pairs are identical
due to symmetry, and the singular modes are uncoupled due to the diagonal
structure of the stiffness matrix. The modes are simply
Lanczos formulation
Introducing an auxiliary variable, ,
augmenting the system of equations with ,
and manipulating the equations yields
This augmented system of equations is due to Ohayon and is used only for
Lanczos eigenvalue extraction. The auxiliary variable
is internal to
Abaqus/Standard
and is not available for output. If
is singular, orthogonalization against the singular acoustic modes is done in
the Lanczos eigensolver.
The left and right eigenvectors for the original system of equations,
Equation 25,
can be constructed from the Lanczos solution. As mentioned above, the singular
modes are essential for construction of an accurate projected operator. It is
easy to verify that the Lanczos system has the following structural singular
mode:
However, if we seek nontrivial acoustic singular modes (i.e.,
,
such that ),
we easily find that
but also that
If a nontrivial
exists,
is singular; therefore, for a solution
to exist, the right-hand-side must be orthogonal to the null space of
.
But we quickly observe that
Consequently, to find an acoustic singular mode using the Lanczos
formulation, we construct a perturbation “force”
such that
The Lanczos formulation will yield the nontrivial singular acoustic mode
The left and right eigenvectors of the original, unsymmetric system
Equation 25,
including the singular modes, can be constructed from the Lanczos solutions
:
where
For any nonsingular acoustic mode ,
,
where
is the circular eigenfrequency. The left and right eigenvector subspaces are
then used to compute modal quantities (generalized mass, participation factors,
and effective mass) and to project the mass, stiffness, and damping matrices in
mode-based procedures (such as subspace-based steady-state dynamic analysis or
transient modal dynamic analysis) to obtain a reduced system of equations. Most
of these computations are conducted in a very similar fashion to the way they
are carried out in the pure structural problem and will not be discussed here.
In addition, for each mode an acoustic fraction of the generalized mass is
computed as the ratio between acoustic contributions to the generalized mass
and to the total generalized mass.
The only exception worth a brief discussion is the choice for the
calculation of the acoustic participation factors and effective masses, as
follows. First, a “rigid body” acoustic mode, ,
analogous to the rigid body modes for the structural problem outlined in
Variables associated with the natural modes of a model,
is chosen to be a constant pressure field of unity. A total “acoustic mass” is
then defined as .
Left and right acoustic participation factors are defined as
and
Abaqus/Standard
will then report the acoustic participation factor computed as
and an acoustic effective mass computed as
The scaling by
in the equation for
is arbitrary. However, this scaling ensures that when all eigenmodes are
extracted, the sum of all acoustic effective masses is 1.0 (minus the
contributions from nodes constrained in the acoustic degree of freedom).
Frequency-domain solution using projections onto modal spaces
Distinct modal space projection methods for coupled forced
structural-acoustic response exist in
Abaqus
for the following cases: using coupled modes from Lanczos, using uncoupled
modes from Lanczos,
and using uncoupled modes from
Abaqus/AMS.
In the Lanczos mode cases the forced response is computed using the
Zienkiewicz-Newton equation, with separate right and left projection operators.
In the
Abaqus/AMS
uncoupled mode case the Everstine equation is used for the forced response and
the right and left projection operators are identical. This case is described
in more detail below.
Using uncoupled
Abaqus/AMS
modes
In this case the Everstine equation is used for the coupled forced
response problem and modes are computed from decoupled structural and acoustic
Abaqus/AMS
runs. In nodal degrees of freedom the forced response is governed by
where
and
here are the complete assembled damping matrices for the structure and fluid,
including viscous and structural damping, as well as boundary impedance
effects. Using transformations constructed from the acoustic and structural
modes,
and representations of the structural and acoustic fields in the spaces
spanned by these modes,
we obtain
The terms in this matrix correspond to the nodal degree-of-freedom
operators, projected onto the modal spaces. The damping and coupling matrices
in modal coordinates are full and unsymmetric.
Volumetric drag and fluid viscosity
The medium supporting acoustic waves may be flowing through a porous matrix,
such as fiberglass used for sound deadening. In this case the parameter
is the flow resistance, the pressure drop required
to force a unit flow through the porous matrix. A propagating plane wave with
nominal particle velocity
loses energy at a rate
Fluids also exhibit momentum losses without a porous matrix resistive medium
through coefficients of shear viscosity
and bulk viscosity .
These are proportionality constants between components of the stress and
spatial derivatives of the shear strain rate and volumetric strain rate,
respectively. In fluid mechanics the shear viscosity term
is usually more important than the bulk term ;
however, acoustics is the study of volumetrically straining flows, so both
constants can be important. The linearized Navier-Stokes equations for
adiabatic perturbations about a base state can be expressed in terms of the
pressure field alone
(Morse
and Ingard, 1968):
In steady state this linearized equation can be written in the form of
Equation 19,
with
so that the viscosity effects can be modeled as a volumetric drag parameter
with the value
If the combined viscosity effects are small,
so we can write
In steady-state form
where
is the forcing frequency. This leads to the following analogy between viscous
fluid losses and volumetric drag or flow resistance:
with density constant with respect to frequency. The energy loss rate for a
propagating plane wave in this linearized, adiabatic, small-viscosity case is
Acoustic output quantities
Several secondary quantities are useful in acoustic analysis, derived from
the fundamental acoustic pressure field variable. In steady-state dynamics the
acoustic particle velocity at any field point is
The acoustic intensity vector, a measure of the rate of flow of energy at a
point, is
In an acoustic medium the stress tensor is simply the acoustic pressure
times the identity tensor, ,
so this expression simplifies to
The hats denote complex conjugation. The real part of the
intensity is referred to as the “active intensity,” and the imaginary part is
the “reactive intensity.”
Acoustic contribution factors
Acoustic contribution factors help the user interpret the behavior of a
coupled structural-acoustic system by showing the relationship between the
acoustic pressure and either specific structural surfaces or specific
structural modes. In the literature they are sometimes referred to as acoustic
“participation factors,” but since this term is used in
Abaqus
to describe characteristics of modes (see
Variables associated with the natural modes of a model),
a different nomenclature is chosen here.
First, consider an acoustic medium in contact with a structure undergoing
time-harmonic vibration. The structure exerts a traction on the fluid at each
point on the wetted surface, causing harmonic pressure in the acoustic medium.
In a given solution to a coupled forced response problem, it is sometimes
useful to separate the pressure into constituent parts, each due to the
vibration of a portion of the wetted surface. For example, in an automotive
acoustic problem it may be useful to determine the parts of the acoustic
pressure field due to the windows, floor, and other panels separately. The
pressure field
generated by some given structural vibration acting only on structural surface
,
with all other parts of the wetted surface held fixed, is defined as the
acoustic contribution factor of that surface:
where
and
is the coupling matrix associated with surface partition
.
can correspond to a group of disjoint surfaces (for example, all the window
glass in an automobile) or to a single node. Because the natural boundary
condition in
Abaqus
for acoustic elements is a rigid wall,
Equation 34
corresponds physically to an acoustic field coupled to the structure only at
surface ,
with all other bounding surfaces rigid.
For example, if a single panel's acoustic contribution is separated from the
total acoustic pressure,
the coupled system of equations for the structural acoustic problem can be
written
where .
This equation makes it clear that the panel's acoustic contribution factor
depends on the solution to the specific coupled harmonic forced response
problem. However, it is more efficient to solve for
and
instead and then solve for
using
Equation 34.
When subspace-based
steady-state dynamics or mode-based steady-state dynamics is used,
and
are projected; in turn, these projected matrices depend on whether the
preceding eigenanalysis step was coupled or uncoupled. For the uncoupled case
separate modal transformations
and
correspond to the acoustic and structural modes, and
The transformed equation defining
becomes
The contribution of a specific mode to the acoustic pressure of a forced
harmonic coupled system may be of interest as well. Physically, a modal
acoustic contribution factor is the part of the acoustic field in a forced
response problem due to the action of one structural (or coupled) mode on the
acoustic fluid. The calculation of a modal acoustic contribution factor depends
on whether the modes in question are uncoupled or coupled structural-acoustic
modes. However, its definition is analogous to the surface or panel acoustic
contribution factor: it is the acoustic response due to forcing on the wetted
surface due only to a single mode of interest, with all other modes held fixed.
Starting from
Equation 34,
but using the entire wetted surface coupling operator ,
where
is the structural response of the coupled problem, restricted to mode
.
If coupled mode transformations are used, this equation becomes
If there is no acoustic force
in the coupled system of interest and no damping or boundary impedances in the
acoustic fluid, this equation is simply the Jth row of the
acoustic part of the projected coupled harmonic forced response problem.
Consequently, the modal acoustic contribution
due to mode J is simply equal to the
Jth modal coefficient of the solution to the coupled
problem, ,
times the Jth column of the pressure partition of the
modal transformation, .
Thus, no additional solution is required to obtain modal acoustic contribution
factors when using coupled mode projections if acoustic forcing is absent. If
acoustic forcing or damping is present in the coupled response problem defining
,
Equation 37
must be solved after the solution
is obtained.
When uncoupled modes are used in the projection for the solution of a
coupled system, there is no direct relationship between acoustic and structural
mode shapes. Therefore, application of the uncoupled modal transformations to
the harmonic forced response problem does not produce the same trivial result
as in the coupled mode case. The system resulting from the application of the
separate uncoupled mode transformations
and
to
Equation 36
must be solved for the modal coefficients
corresponding to forcing via structural mode :
Impedance and admittance at fluid boundaries
Equation 11
(or alternatively
Equation 9)
can be written in a complex admittance form for steady-state analysis:
where we define
The term
is the complex admittance of the boundary, and
is the corresponding complex impedance. Thus, a required complex impedance or
admittance value can be entered for a given frequency by fitting data to the
parameters
and
using
Equation 39.
For absorption of plane waves in an infinite medium with volumetric drag,
the complex impedance can be shown to be
For the impedance-based nonreflective boundary condition in
Abaqus/Standard,
the equations above are used to determine the required constants
and .
They are a function of frequency if the volumetric drag is nonzero. The
small-drag versions of these equations are used in the direct time integration
procedures, as in
Equation 46.
Radiation boundary conditions
Many acoustic studies involve a vibrating structure in an infinite domain.
In these cases we model a layer of the acoustic medium using finite elements,
to a thickness of
to a full wavelength, out to a “radiating” boundary surface. We then impose a
condition on this surface to allow the acoustic waves to pass through and not
reflect back into the computational domain. For radiation boundaries of simple
shapes—such as planes, spheres, and the like—simple impedance boundary
conditions can represent good approximations to the exact radiation conditions.
In particular, we include local algebraic radiation conditions of the form
where
is the wave number and
is the complex density (see
Equation 18).
f is a geometric factor related to the metric factors of
the curvilinear coordinate system used on the boundary, and
is a spreading loss term (see
Table 1).
Table 1. Boundary condition parameters.
Geometry
f
Plane
1
0
Circle or circular cylinder
1
Ellipse or elliptical cylinder
Sphere
1
Prolate spheroid
Comparison of
Equation 41
and
Equation 9
reveals that, for steady-state analysis, there exists a direct analogy to the
reactive boundary equation,
Equation 21,
with
and
For transient procedures the treatment of volumetric drag in the acoustic
equations and the radiation conditions necessitates an approximation. In the
acoustics equation we use the boundary term
Combining
Equation 41
with
Equation 44,
expanding about ,
and retaining only first-order terms leads to
The Fourier inverse of the steady-state form results in the transient
boundary condition
This expression involves independent coefficients for pressure and its first
derivative in time, unlike the transient reactive boundary expression (Equation 10),
which includes independent coefficients for the first and second derivatives of
pressure only. Consequently, to implement this expression, we define the
admittance parameters
and
so the boundary traction for the transient radiation boundary condition can
be written
The values of the parameters f and
vary with the geometry of the boundary of the radiating surface of the acoustic
medium. The geometries supported in
Abaqus
are summarized in
Table 1.
In the table
refers to the eccentricity of the ellipse or spheroid;
refers to the radius of the circle, sphere, or the semimajor axis of the
ellipse or spheroid;
is the vector locating the integration point on the ellipse or spheroid;
is the vector locating the center of the ellipse or spheroid; and
is the vector that orients the major axis.
These algebraic boundary conditions are approximations to the exact
impedance of a boundary radiating into an infinite exterior. The plane wave
condition is the exact impedance for plane waves normally incident to a planar
boundary. The spherical condition exactly annihilates the first Legendre mode
of a radiating spherical surface; the circular condition is asymptotically
correct for the first mode
(Bayliss
et al., 1982). The elliptical and prolate spheroidal conditions are
based on expansions of elliptical and prolate spheroidal wave functions in the
low-eccentricity limit
(Grote
and Keller, 1995); the prolate spheroidal condition exactly annihilates
the first term of its expansion, while the elliptical condition is asymptotic.
An improvement on radiation boundary conditions for plane waves
As already pointed out, the radiation boundary conditions derived in the
previous section for plane waves are actually based on the presumption that the
sound wave impinges on the boundary from an orthogonal direction. But this is
not always the case.
Figure 1
shows a general example for plane waves in which the sound wave direction
differs from the boundary normal by an angle of .
To consider this situation accurately, we adopt the plane-wave radiation
equation used in
Sandler
(1998); i.e.,
where
is the sound speed with
and
is the corresponding speed normal to the boundary. This exact description of
the geometry is the starting point for many developments of approximate
absorbing boundary conditions (see, for example,
Engquist
and Majda, 1977). Thus, we have
Using the first-order expanding approximation to the second term in the
square root in the above equation (similar to what we did to reach
Equation 45),
we can obtain an improved radiation boundary condition
It can be found from comparison that this equation differs from
Equation 46
only by a factor of
for plane waves. In two dimensions the
can be calculated as
The normal and tangential derivatives
and
at the integration points can be evaluated using the corresponding element
along the radiation boundary surface (see
Figure 2);
i.e.,
where
are the nodal pressure values of the element.
The method described in this section can be used only for direct integration
transient dynamics; it cannot be used with steady-state or modal response. In
addition, it is available for planar, axisymmetric, and three-dimensional
geometries.
Finally, the method makes the equilibrium equations nonlinear, as shown in
Equation 52.
Although in theory the iteration process in
Abaqus/Standard
can solve the nonlinear equilibrium equations accurately, the use of a small
half-increment residual tolerance is strongly suggested since in many cases the
pressure and its related residual along the radiation boundaries are very weak
relative to the other places in the modeled domain. The computation of
at the integration point is based on the nodal pressures. The nodal pressures
are updated using the explicit central difference procedure described in
Explicit dynamic analysis.