Resonance Frequency-modal Analysis

AI Thread Summary
In conducting a resonance frequency-modal analysis using MSC Nastran 103 for a car's sheet metal platform, applying constraints is essential for obtaining meaningful results. A free modal analysis without constraints can yield infinite vibrational modes that do not reflect real-life conditions. The location of excitation points significantly influences the outcomes, but boundary conditions must be defined to ensure the analysis accurately represents the physical behavior of the structure. For frequency-response analysis, both excitation forces and full constraints are necessary to assess the model's reaction to vibrations. Ultimately, constraining the model as it would be in real life is crucial for credible finite element analysis results.
ataras
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Using MSC Nastran 103 to calculate BIW (car's sheet metal platform only)resonance frequency by FE method, do we need to apply any constrains?
I think, a free modal analysis means no constrains, however, final outcome (Hz)will depends on where forces are applied to the model ? Cross car torsional stiffness frequency will be diferent from front to back. Please, advise.
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
I would think, at the bare minimum, you would constrain the panel as it would be in the installation. A panel confined around its edges is going to act differently than a free floating one. Just thinking of the solving of the differential equations, you need to specify the BCs to get a particular solution.
 
To get results that are worth something, you need to constrain the model as it will be constrained in real-life. While it might be possible that the solver will solve without constraints (depends on the software) the results are meaningless. You'll end up with an infinite number of vibrational modes that CANNOT happen in real life because there should be a constraint there.

Think of the possible differences just on a simple structure like a standard rectangular beam. Simply supported, single cantilever, or double cantilever will all give you far different modes of vibration, yet the structure looks exactly the same in each case, only the boundary conditions have changed.
 
Thanks, location of excitations points is crucial. Every time you change them you do get different results. Point I was trying to make is that you induce vibration through excitation points on particular modes without having to constrain the object.
 
ataras said:
Thanks, location of excitations points is crucial. Every time you change them you do get different results. Point I was trying to make is that you induce vibration through excitation points on particular modes without having to constrain the object.

If you're doing a modal analysis, you shouldn't need to have any excitation points defined. The program should solve for the natural modes of vibration without them; but boundary conditions are crucial. This solution should show you the nature of the mode, and it's modal ferquency.

If you're doing a frequency-response analysis, you will need to define an excitation force, a range of frequencies, AND constrain the model fully. This solution can show you the model's reaction to an input vibration. As before, if the model is unconstrained you will not get any results that are useful (rigid-body motion, modes that don't exist in the constrained model, etc).

Basically, no matter what, if you want to believe the results you're getting, you need to constrain the model as it will be constrained in real-life. There is a VERY fine line between getting numbers, and getting numbers that make sense in FEA.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
439
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top