How to eliminate modes in Ansys modal analysis

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on eliminating unwanted modes in ANSYS modal analysis, specifically targeting transverse modes while excluding torsional and longitudinal modes. Users can achieve this by applying specific boundary conditions that restrict motion in undesired directions. The conversation highlights that while ANSYS inherently captures all deformation types, formulating the problem as a conventional eigenproblem using tools like Mathematica or Maple can provide more control over the results. Additionally, the use of APDL code for post-processing to filter modes based on directional deformations is suggested as a viable approach.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ANSYS modal analysis techniques
  • Familiarity with boundary conditions in finite element analysis (FEA)
  • Knowledge of eigenvalue problems and eigensolvers
  • Basic programming skills in ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research how to apply boundary conditions in ANSYS to exclude specific modes
  • Learn about formulating eigenproblems in Mathematica and Maple
  • Explore the use of APDL for post-processing modal analysis results
  • Study the impact of different boundary conditions on mode shapes in FEA
USEFUL FOR

Engineers and analysts involved in modal analysis, particularly those using ANSYS for finite element modeling and seeking to optimize their results by filtering out specific mode shapes.

Mohamed_Wael
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I am studying the modal analysis of a mechanism and I am only interested in the transverse modes, I wonder if there is a way to formulate my problem so that the results show only the transverse modes without the torsional and longitudinal ones, this would help in the post-processing a lot.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
While I am not an ANSYS expert in any sense, I doubt that this will be possible as long as you work in ANSYS. One of the "features" of the finite element method is that it captures all types of deformation.

As an alternative, if you avoid ANSYS, and simply formulate your problem as a conventional eigneproblem, you can choose what coordinates you use in the formulation; these will be the only ones that appear in the final result. You can use an eigensolver in Mathmatica, Maple, etc to get your modal results.
 
The best way to do this [in FEA] is through boundary conditions. If you apply boundary supports that prevent motion in certain directions, you won't see any modes in that direction.
 
Last edited:
It is certainly true that particular boundary conditions will exclude specific modes. To use this idea, however, requires an intimate knowledge before the fact of the eigenvectors that are to be eliminated. This is usually not practical.
 
Dr.D said:
It is certainly true that particular boundary conditions will exclude specific modes. To use this idea, however, requires an intimate knowledge before the fact of the eigenvectors that are to be eliminated. This is usually not practical.

I meant for excluding certain mode shapes in ANSYS. If you aren't interested in modes of a certain kind in an FEA model, one way to exclude them is to apply boundary conditions which don't allow motion in certain directions.

Take for example a square plate with mounting holes at the corners. By constraining the plate at the holes you will still get high-order modes which allow deflection in the middle of the plate between the mounting holes, which might not happen if the plate is bolted to a rigid structure. So to constrain these modes in the FEA model you might apply a boundary condition to the supported surface area rather than just the holes.
 
There is an option to write an APDL code for post processing. Perhaps the code could check the directional deformations of each mode and
determine modes of interest.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K