June 16, 2021 at 6:42 pmahmadsamih1Subscriber
i am doing my project using a multi leaf spring. I have done modal analysis to obtain the natural frequency, and i also have done an accurate theoretical calculation to find the natural frequency for first four modes. my issue is that the percentage of difference is very high when i compare theoretical results to FEM ansys results. I am not sure what causes the high percentage difference. i have followed the boundary conditions exactly. but cant get less than 10% percentage of difference most is 30% and more. what might affect my FEM simulation results. for meshing i have done sizing only at 7.5mmJune 16, 2021 at 9:48 pmpeteroznewmanSubscriberWhat is the source for this theoretical calculation?
Why do you think it is accurate?
What simplifying assumptions did it make?
How did you model the multi-leaf spring in ANSYS?
Is each leaf free to slide on the adjacent leaf or are the leaves bonded together?
Are the leaves modeled with shell elements or solid elements?
Are the elements linear or quadratic?
If the leaves are modeled with solid elements, how many elements are across the thickness?
Please insert some images into your reply.
June 17, 2021 at 7:19 amahmadsamih1Subscriber1) source is based on an article where they did theoretical/ ansys simulation for leaf spring. and the percentage of difference is less than 10% for first 3 natural frequency (fixed ends)
2) using Euler's equation to find the natural frequency
3) i have modeled the leaf spring using solidworks my leaf spring consists of 10 leaves so i modeled each leaf separately and then did assembly, then saved as .IGES
4) the connections are bonded between each leaf
5) solid elements
7) i dont know how many elements
i am using ansys student version and i am not that advanced when it comes to meshing
below is the formula used, model, meshing, results
based on theoretical calculation results of natural frequency is f1 = 90.9Hz, f2 = 250.4 Hz, f3 = 491 Hz
June 17, 2021 at 7:35 amErik KostsonAnsys EmployeeHI
I am not convinced that the theoretical calculation is comparable since it must have some simplifications (try to see what these are).
The comparisons and validations of the FEA results, should be done against experimental modal measurements on this structure.
All the best
June 17, 2021 at 10:01 amahmadsamih1Subscribernoted Mr. Erik thank you
June 17, 2021 at 11:57 ampeteroznewmanSubscriberI agree with both points Erik made.
Comparing a theoretical equation result with an FEA result is useful, but you have to consider the fact that the equation contains simplifying assumptions. For example, an FEA solid model is computing shear deformation while an Euler-Bernoulli Beam equation ignores shear deformation. A physical beam in an experiment has shear deformation but for long slender beams in bending, the shear deformation is negligible.
The link below is to a project done by a student who compared the Euler beam vibration results to his own FEA code. I suggest you build an ANSYS model that matches one of the configurations in this paper to see if your Modal analysis gives results closer to the equations and results in this paper.
June 18, 2021 at 7:13 amRameez_ul_HaqSubscriber, Euler-Bernoulli beam theory also has an assumption that the cross-sections along the beam always remain perpendicular to the neutral axis. But in reality, there are no cross-sections of any beam. So what is the importance of this assumption?
June 18, 2021 at 3:44 pmpeteroznewmanSubscriberCross sections perpendicular to the neutral axis can be physically drawn on the side of a straight beam with a pencil. The more modern approach would be to spray a pattern of dots on the side surface. When a short stubby beam has a load applied, it can be observed and measured that the lines that used to be perpendicular are no longer perpendicular due to the deformation of material in the beam.
In an FEA model with nice square hex elements, the nodes can be arrayed along the neutral axis and along lines perpendicular to that. When the deformed shape is plotted in a nonlinear analysis with large deflection on, it can be observed and measured that the lines that used to be perpendicular are no longer perpendicular.
Viewing 7 reply threads
Ansys Innovation Space
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Simulation World 2022
Check out more than 70 different sessions now available on demand. Get inspired as you hear from visionary companies, leading researchers and educators from around the globe on a variety of topics from life-saving improvements in healthcare, to bold new realities of space travel. Take a leap of certainty and check out a session today here.
Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.Trending discussions
- How to calculate the residual stress on a coating by Vickers indentation?
- Saving & sharing of Working project files in .wbpz format
- An Unknown error occurred during solution. Check the Solver Output…..
- Solver Pivot Warning in Beam Element Model
- Understanding Force Convergence Solution Output
- Colors and Mesh Display
- whether have the difference between using contact and target bodies
- The solver engine was unable to converge on a solution for the nonlinear problem as constrained.
- What is the difference between bonded contact region and fixed joint
- Massive amount of memory (RAM) required for solve
Top Rated Tags
© 2022 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.Ansys does not support the usage of unauthorized Ansys software. Please visit www.ansys.com to obtain an official distribution.