This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Numerical simulation of ﬂuid–structure interaction using

**the ﬁnite element method
**

P.R.F. Teixeira

a

, A.M. Awruch

b,

*

a

Department of Materials and Construction, Federal University of Rio Grande-FURG,

96201-900 Rio Grande, RS, Brazil

b

Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Applied and Computational Mechanics Center,

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-190 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Received 20 March 2002; received in revised form 8 December 2003; accepted 31 March 2004

Available online 20 July 2004

Abstract

An algorithm to simulate 3D ﬂuid–structure interaction problems using the ﬁnite element technique is

presented in this work. A two-step Taylor–Galerkin scheme and linear tetrahedra elements are employed to

analyze the ﬂuid ﬂow, which may be high or slightly compressible. An arbitrary Lagrangean–Eulerian

(ALE) formulation is adopted, which must be compatible with the motion of the ﬂuid–structure interface.

A fractional method with velocity correction is used for incompressible ﬂuids. The structure is analyzed

using triangular elements with three nodes and six degrees of freedom in each node (three displacement

components and three rotation components). Geometrically non-linear eﬀects are included. The Newmark

method is employed to integrate in time the dynamic equilibrium equations using an updated Lagrangean

description. The algebraic system of equations is solved using the conjugated gradient method and an

incremental-iterative scheme is used to solve the non-linear system resulting from ﬁnite displacements and

rotations. The code is optimized to take advantages of vector processors. Some cases studies have been

considered for validation of the computational algorithm. A two-dimensional supersonic ﬂow over a

clamped ﬂat plate is analyzed in order to study the aeroelastic behavior of this plate. Vibrations due to wind

action of an inﬂated membrane as well as vortex inducing vibrations in a panel immersed in a slightly

compressible ﬂuid are also studied.

Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +55-51-3316-3587; fax: +55-51-3316-3999.

E-mail address: amawruch@vortex.ufrgs.br (A.M. Awruch).

0045-7930/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.compﬂuid.2004.03.006

Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

www.elsevier.com/locate/compﬂuid

1. Introduction

Important progress has been obtained in the solution of complex ﬂuid–structure interaction

problems in recent years, allowing the study of multidisciplinary applications in diﬀerent engi-

neering areas. This progress is due mainly to the increase of the speed of modern computers, to the

evolution of multidisciplinary solution algorithms and of pre- and post-processing tools. The

methods of simulation of ﬂuid–structure interaction problems are divided basically in two groups

called partitioned and monolithic schemes [1,2]. In the partitioned schemes the governing equa-

tions of the ﬂuid and the structure are integrated in time alternately in an isolated way. In the

monolithic schemes the two ﬁelds are considered as a single entity, allowing to integrate in time

the two subdomains simultaneously. In partitioned schemes such as proposed by Soria and Ca-

sadei [3], Rifai et al. [4], Farhat et al. [5], Cebral and L€ ohner [6] and many other authors, the

kinematic and dynamic boundary conditions in the interface are the unique information changed

between the subdomains. In these schemes each sub-domain can be solved by discretization

techniques and by eﬃcient solution algorithms in an individual way. New methods and models

can be introduced in a modular way in order to get more ﬂexibility. Besides, the meshes of each

subdomain can be built without the coincidence of ﬂuid and structural nodes at the interfaces

[6,7]. These modular characteristics and ﬂexibility may be extremely convenient.

An algorithm to simulate ﬂuid–structure interaction problems using a partitioned scheme is

presented in this work. A two-step explicit Taylor–Galerkin scheme [8,9], with linear tetrahedral

ﬁnite elements is employed. An arbritary Lagrangean–Eulerian (ALE) description is adopted for

the ﬂuid domain, while for the structural domain an updated Lagrangean formulation is con-

sidered. The ALE description was ﬁrst presented by Hirt et al. [10] and after this method was used

by several authors such as Hughes et al. [11], Donea et al. [12], Benson [13], Liu et al. [14] among

others. The structure is analyzed using generalized conforming triangular plates and shell ele-

ments with drilling degrees of freedom [15]. Geometrically non-linear eﬀects are included. The

Newmark method [16] is employed to integrate in time the dynamic equilibrium equation. The

non-linear and the algebraic systems are solved using an incremental-iterative scheme and

the conjugate gradient method, respectively. The code was vectorized to take advantages of

vectorial processors. Several problems are used to validate the methods developed in this work

and illustrate the diﬀerence between linear and non-linear aeroelastic computations.

2. The ﬂuid dynamic solver

2.1. The explicit two-step Taylor–Galerkin scheme for high compressible ﬂows

In the ALE description, the computational frame is a reference independent of the particle

movement and may be moving with an arbitrary velocity in the laboratory system (this motion is

called the ‘‘mesh’’ motion in the ﬁnite element formulation); the continuum view from this ref-

erence is denoted as X

v

and the coordinates of any point are denoted as v [14]. The equations

expressing mass, momentum and energy conservation in ALE formulation may be written in a

compact form as

250 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

oV

ot

¸

¸

¸

¸

v

þ

oFi

oxi

¼ wi

oV

oxi

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð1Þ

with F

i

¼ F

iA

þ F

iD

and

V ¼

q

qv

1

qv

2

qv

3

qe

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

; F

iA

¼

qv

i

qv

1

v

i

þ pd

i1

qv

2

v

i

þ pd

i2

qv

3

v

i

þ pd

i3

v

i

ðqe þ pÞ

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

; F

iD

¼

0

Às

1i

Às

2i

Às

3i

Às

ij

v

j

À k

ij

oT=ox

j

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð2Þ

where v

i

and w

i

are the ﬂuid and the mesh velocity components in the direction of the spatial

coordinate x

i

respectively, q is the density, p is the thermodynamic pressure, s

ij

are the compo-

nents of the deviatoric stress tensor, T is the temperature, e is the total speciﬁc energy and k

ij

are

the components of the conductivity tensor; vector V contains the conservation or the ﬁeld vari-

ables and F

i

are the components of the ﬂux variables (F

iA

contains the advective terms and F

iD

the

viscous terms). Finally, d

ij

is the Kronecker delta. Eq. (1) is complemented by the equation of state

for an ideal gas and by the constitutive equations. Initial and boundary conditions must be added

to these equations in order to deﬁne uniquely the problem.

In the Taylor–Galerkin scheme, conservation equations are expanded in time by Taylor series,

and after, space discretization is accomplished by the classical Bubnov–Galerkin scheme [16–18].

A two-step method is used, as indicated by Zienkiewicz et al. [8]; this approach can be interpreted

as the ﬁnite element version of the Lax–Wendroﬀ scheme used in ﬁnite diﬀerences [19]. In the ﬁrst

step, corresponding to the time interval ½t

n

; t

nþ1=2

, the unknown vector V at t ¼ t

nþ1=2

is expanded

in Taylor series. Using a linear shape function N associated with each node to interpolate V

n

, a

constant shape function P

E

¼ 1 associated with element E to interpolate V

nþ1=2

and applying the

classical Galerkin weighted residual method to the expression resulting from Taylor series

expansion, the following equation is obtained:

X

nþ1=2

E

V

nþ1=2

E

¼

_

X

n

E

NdX

_ _

V

n

À

Dt

2

_

X

n

E

oN

ox

i

dX

_ _

F

n

i

_

À

_

X

n

E

Nw

n

i

oN

ox

i

dX

_ _

V

n

_

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð3Þ

where X

nþ1=2

E

is the element volume, V

nþ1=2

E

is a constant value at element level and the upper bar

indicates nodal variables.

In the second step, the unknown vector at t ¼ t

nþ1

is expanded in Taylor series. Using again the

same shape functions, and applying the Bubnov–Galerkin method, the following equation is

obtained for the second step:

_

X

nþ1

E

N

T

NdX

_ _

V

nþ1

¼

_

X

n

E

N

T

NdX

_ _

V

n

þDt

_

X

nþ1=2

E

oN

ox

i

dX

_ _

F

nþ1=2

i

_

À w

nþ1=2

i

V

nþ1=2

_

À Dt

_

C

nþ1=2

E

Nl

i

dC

_ _

F

nþ1=2

Bi

_

À w

nþ1=2

Bi

V

nþ1=2

B

_

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð4Þ

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 251

where C

nþ1=2

E

is the boundary of the element domain X

nþ1=2

E

and l

i

is the cosine of the angle formed

by the outward normal axis to C

nþ1=2

E

with the positive direction of the reference axis x

i

. Index B is

referred to values at the boundary of the element domain. In Eq. (4), the consistent mass matrix is

substituted by the lumped mass matrix, and then this equation is solved iteratively. The proposed

scheme is conditionally stable, and the local stability condition is applied.

In order to stabilize numerically the solution, specially in the presence of strong shocks, it is

necessary to add numerical damping to the ﬂow solver. In this work the viscosity model, as given

by Peraire et al. [20], is adopted. An artiﬁcial viscosity is added explicitly to the non-smoothed

solution, as follows

V

nþ1

s

¼ V

nþ1

þ ðM

nþ1

L

Þ

À1

D ð5Þ

where V

nþ1

s

and V

nþ1

are the smoothed and non-smoothed solution at t ¼ t

nþ1

respectively. M

nþ1

L

is

the assembled lumped mass matrix at t ¼ t

nþ1

The vector D is given by

D ¼

E

CFL

E

CCS

E

½M

n

E

C

À M

n

E

L

V

n

E

ð6Þ

where E is an index referred to a speciﬁc element, CFL

E

is the local Courant number, CC is a

global constant speciﬁed by the user, S

E

is a coeﬃcient of pressure distribution (see Refs. [8,9]),

M

n

E

C

and M

n

E

L

are the consistent and lumped mass matrices, respectively. The constant CC must be

speciﬁed with care in order to avoid interferences of the artiﬁcial and physical viscosities. CC

varies between 2.0 and 10.0.

2.2. The two-step Taylor–Galerkin scheme for slightly compressible ﬂows

Mass conservation for slightly compressible ﬂuids, assuming constant entropy, may be ex-

pressed by the following equation:

oq

ot

¼

1

c

2

op

ot

¼ À

oU

i

ox

i

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð7Þ

where c is the sound speed and U

i

¼ qv

i

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ.

Expanding the momentum conservation equations in Taylor series, the following expression is

obtained for the ﬁrst step:

U

nþ1=2

i

¼ U

n

i

þ

Dt

2

oU

n

i

ot

¼ U

n

i

À

Dt

2

of

n

ij

ox

j

_

À

os

n

ij

ox

j

þ

op

n

ox

i

þ

1

2

oDp

ox

i

À w

n

j

oU

n

i

ox

i

_

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ

ð8Þ

where f

ij

¼ v

j

U

i

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ and p

nþ1=2

¼ p

n

þ 1=2Dp, with Dp ¼ p

nþ1

À p

n

. Using

¯

U

nþ1=2

i

¼ U

n

i

À

Dt

2

of

n

ij

ox

j

_

À

os

n

ij

ox

j

þ

op

n

ox

i

À w

n

j

oU

n

i

ox

i

_

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð9Þ

Eq. (8) is given by the following expression:

U

nþ1=2

i

¼

¯

U

nþ1=2

i

À

Dt

4

oDp

ox

i

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð10Þ

252 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

Discretizing Eq. (7) in time and using Eq. (10), it is obtained:

Dq ¼

1

c

2

Dp ¼ ÀDt

oU

nþ1=2

i

ox

i

¼ ÀDt

o

¯

U

nþ1=2

i

ox

i

_

À

Dt

4

o

ox

i

oDp

ox

i

_

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð11Þ

The second time step is given by the following expression:

U

nþ1

i

¼ U

n

i

þDt

oU

nþ1=2

i

ot

¼ U

n

i

ÀDt

of

nþ1=2

ij

ox

j

_

À

os

nþ1=2

ij

ox

j

þ

op

nþ1=2

ox

i

À w

nþ1=2

j

oU

nþ1=2

i

ox

i

_

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð12Þ

Then the ﬂow is analyzed, after space discretization, by the following algorithm: (1) determine

¯

U

nþ1=2

i

with Eq. (9); (2) determine Dp with Eq. (11) and calculate p

nþ1

¼ p

n

þ Dp; (3) determine

U

nþ1=2

i

with Eq. (10); (4) determine U

nþ1

i

with Eq. (12).

Considering the same shape functions used in compressible ﬂows and applying the classical

Galerkin method for space discretization, the following matrix expressions are obtained for Eqs.

(9), (11), (10) and (12), respectively:

X

nþ1=2

E

¯

U

nþ1=2

iE

¼

_

X

n

NdX

_ _

U

n

i

À

Dt

2

_

X

n

oN

ox

j

dX

_ _

f

n

ij

_

À

_

X

n

oN

ox

j

dX

_ _

s

n

ij

þ

_

X

n

oN

ox

i

dX

_ _

p

n

À

_

X

n

Nw

n

j

oN

ox

j

dX

_ _

U

n

i

_

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð13Þ

_

X

nþ1=2

N

T

1

c

2

NdX

_

þ

Dt

2

4

_

X

nþ1=2

oN

T

ox

i

oN

ox

i

dX À

_

C

nþ1=2

N

T

oN

ox

i

n

i

dX

_

Dp

¼ Dt

_

X

nþ1=2

oN

T

ox

i

dX

_ _

¯

U

nþ1=2

iE

_

À

_

C

nþ1=2

N

T

n

i

dC

_ _

¯

U

nþ1=2

iE

_

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð14Þ

X

nþ1=2

E

U

nþ1=2

iE

¼ X

nþ1=2

E

¯

U

nþ1=2

iE

À

Dt

4

_

X

nþ1=2

oN

ox

i

dX

_ _

Dp ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð15Þ

_

X

nþ1

N

T

NdX

_ _

U

nþ1

i

¼

_

X

n

N

T

NdX

_ _

U

n

i

þDt

_

X

nþ1=2

oN

T

ox

j

dX

_ _

f

nþ1=2

ij

_

À w

nþ1=2

j

U

nþ1=2

i

_

E

À Dt

_

X

nþ1=2

oN

T

ox

j

NdX

_ _

s

n

ij

þDt

_

X

nþ1=2

oN

T

ox

i

NdX

_ _

p

n

_

þ Dp=2

_

À Dt

_

C

nþ1=2

N

T

n

j

dC

_ _

ðf

nþ1=2

ij

À w

nþ1=2

j

U

nþ1=2

i

Þ

E

þ Dt

_

C

nþ1=2

N

T

Nn

j

dC

_ _

s

n

ij

ÀDt

_

C

nþ1=2

N

T

Nn

i

dC

_ _

_

p

n

þ Dp=2

_

ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð16Þ

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 253

In Eqs. (13)–(16) the index E indicates that the corresponding variables are taken with a constant

value over the element domain. Eq. (14) is solved using the conjugate gradient method with

diagonal pre-conditioning. In this equation the boundary integral involving the pressure incre-

ment in the left hand side could be omitted. One of the reason for this simpliﬁcation is apparent if

Eq. (10) is examined. It is observed that on boundaries where the velocities are prescribed

oDp=ox

i

¼ 0. The other reason is that on traction boundaries, no change of traction occurs and

then Dp ¼ 0 [18].

2.3. The algorithm for mesh movement

The mesh velocity ﬁeld w is computed looking for small element distortions, conserving pre-

scribed velocities in moving and stationary boundary surfaces. The mesh movement algorithm

adopted in this work uses a smoothing procedure for the velocities based in these boundary

surfaces. The updating of the mesh velocity at a point i of the ﬁnite element domain is based on

the mesh velocity of the points j belonging to the boundary surfaces in the following way

(see Fig. 1):

w

i

¼

ns

j¼1

a

ij

w

j

ns

j¼1

a

ij

ð17Þ

where ns is the total number of points belonging to the boundary surfaces and a

ij

are the inﬂuence

coeﬃcients between the point i inside the domain and the point j of the boundary surface given by

the following expression:

a

ij

¼

1

d

4

ij

ð18Þ

with d

ij

being the distance between the points i and j. In other words, a

ij

represents the weight that

each point j of the boundary surface has on the value of the mesh velocity at points i inside the

domain. When d

ij

is small, a

ij

has an high value, favouring the inﬂuence of points i, located closer

to the boundary surface containing point j.

Fig. 1. Distances from the boundary surfaces to a point ‘‘i’’ in the ﬂuid domain.

254 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

In the present work a variation to simplify this method and safe computer time was adopted for

the case in which the displacement of the body surface is not signiﬁcantly high. It consists of

choosing previously for each point inside the ﬂuid domain at least two surface points having

important inﬂuence in the calculation of the mesh velocity according to Eq. (17). One of these

points belongs to the moving body surface and the other one to the external ﬁxed surface. Each of

these two points have the largest values of coeﬃcient a

ij

among all the other points in its respective

surface because each one is the closest point of the respective surface with respect to the node

where the mesh velocity will be determined. Therefore, this procedure uses the same Eq. (17), but

considering only one point in each boundary surface, corresponding to the node which have the

smallest distance with respect of the point inside the ﬂuid domain where the mesh velocity will be

computed. The method can be generalized when there are two or more body surfaces. In this case,

it must be used a point of each body surface to calculate the mesh velocities ﬁeld inside the ﬂuid

domain.

3. The structural dynamic solver with a triangular thin plate element

A generalized conforming triangular thin plate element with six degrees of freedom in each

node (three displacements and three rotations components), in which the compatibility conditions

at each node and along each side are applied, is used in the present work (see Fig. 2) [15].

The total stiﬀness matrix of the element is obtained by the overlap of the membrane stiﬀness

matrix with the bending stiﬀness matrix. A typical membrane triangular element is adopted where

each point has two degrees of freedom of translation u

xi

and u

yi

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ and one of rotation h

zi

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ in the plane of the element middle surface. The membrane displacements are expressed

in the following way:

u

m

¼ ½ u

x

u

y

T

¼ N

m

u

e

m

ð19Þ

where u

e

m

is the nodal membrane generalized displacements vector given by

Fig. 2. The thin plate triangular element.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 255

u

e

mi

¼ u

xi

u

yi

h

zi

½

T

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð20Þ

and N

m

is the membrane interpolation function deﬁned as follows:

N

mi

¼

L

i

0 N

uhi

0 L

i

N

vhi

_ _

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð21Þ

being L

i

the area coordinates and

N

uhi

¼

1

2

L

i

ðb

m

L

j

À b

j

L

m

Þ; N

vhi

¼

1

2

L

i

ðc

m

L

j

À c

j

L

m

Þ;

b

i

¼ y

j

À y

m

; c

i

¼ x

m

À x

j

ði; j; m ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð22Þ

The transverse displacement ﬁeld is discretized by

u

z

¼ N

b

u

e

b

ð23Þ

where u

e

b

is the nodal bending generalized displacements vector, which is written in the following

way:

u

e

bi

¼ ½ u

zi

h

xi

h

yi

T

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð24Þ

being u

zi

the nodal transverse displacements, and h

xi

and h

yi

the nodal rotations around the axes x

and y, respectively. N

b

is the bending interpolation function given by

N

bi

¼ ½ N

i

N

xi

N

yi

T

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð25Þ

with

N

i

¼ L

i

À 2F

i

þ ð1 À r

j

ÞF

j

þ ð1 þ r

m

ÞF

m

N

xi

¼ À

1

2

½b

m

L

i

L

j

À b

j

L

m

L

i

þ ðb

j

À b

m

ÞF

i

þ ðr

j

b

j

þ b

m

ÞF

j

þ ðr

m

b

m

À b

j

ÞF

m

N

yi

¼ À

1

2

½c

m

L

i

L

j

À c

j

L

m

L

i

þ ðc

j

À c

m

ÞF

i

þ ðr

j

c

j

þ c

m

ÞF

j

þ ðr

m

c

m

À c

j

ÞF

m

ð26Þ

F

i

¼ L

i

ðL

i

À 0:5ÞðL

i

À 1Þ; r

i

¼

1

l

2

jm

l

2

im

_

À l

2

ij

_

; l

ij

¼

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

x

2

ij

þ y

2

ij

_

;

x

ij

¼ x

i

À x

j

; y

ij

¼ y

i

À y

j

ði; j; m ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ

The linear stiﬀness matrix at element level due to membrane and bending eﬀects are given,

respectively, by the following expressions:

K

Lmi

¼

_

X

ðeÞ

B

T

mi

D

m

B

mi

dX; K

Lbi

¼

_

X

ðeÞ

B

T

bi

D

b

B

bi

dX ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð27Þ

where X

ðeÞ

is the element domain. The constitutive matrices D

m

and D

b

are given, respectively, by

D

m

¼

Eh

1 À m

2

D; D

b

¼

Eh

3

12ð1 À m

2

Þ

D; D ¼

1 m 0

m 1 0

0 0 ð1 À mÞ=2

_

_

_

_

ð28Þ

where h is the elements thickness, m the Poisson’s ratio and E the Young’s modulus. Finally, the

strain–displacement relations are

256 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

B

mi

¼

1

4X

ðeÞ

2b

i

0 b

i

ðb

m

L

j

À b

j

L

m

Þ

0 2c

i

c

i

ðc

m

L

j

À c

j

L

m

Þ

2c

i

2b

i

ðc

i

b

m

þ b

i

c

m

ÞL

j

À ðc

i

b

j

þ b

i

c

j

ÞL

m

_

_

_

_

ði; j; m ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð29Þ

and

B

bi

¼ À

N

i;xx

N

xi;xx

N

yi;xx

N

i;yy

N

xi;yy

N

yi;yy

2N

i;xy

2N

xi;xy

2N

yi;xy

_

_

_

_

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð30Þ

The non-linear geometric stiﬀness matrix is given by

K

NLi

¼

_

X

ðeÞ

G

T

Gi

T

i

G

Gi

dX ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð31Þ

where T

i

contains the membrane internal forces and is given by

T

i

¼

T

xxi

T

xyi

T

yxi

T

yyi

_ _

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð32Þ

with

T

xxi

¼

3

k¼1

D

m

ð1; kÞ Á B

mi

ðk; 1Þ

_ _

Á u

mi

ð1Þ

T

yyi

¼

3

k¼1

D

m

ð2; kÞ Á B

mi

ðk; 2Þ

_ _

Á u

mi

ð2Þ ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ

T

xyi

¼

3

k¼1

D

m

ð3; kÞ Á B

mi

ðk; 3Þ

_ _

Á u

mi

ð1Þ ¼ T

yxi

ð33Þ

while G

Gi

is given by

G

Gi

¼

N

i;x

N

xi;x

N

yi;x

N

i;y

N

xi;y

N

yi;y

_ _

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð34Þ

The dynamic equilibrium equations of the structural system are obtained by the space discreti-

zation of the virtual work equations, which must be solved for each time step using a numerical

integration scheme. In the present work the well-known Newmark method is used [16], with

parameters d ¼ 1=2 and a ¼ 1=4. In geometrically non-linear problems the solution of these

balance equations is accomplished for each time step with an incremental iterative procedure

using an updated Lagrangean formulation. The resulting system of algebraic equations are solved

using the gradient conjugate method with incomplete Cholesky factorization [21,22].

4. The ﬂuid–structure interaction algorithm

Commonly, ﬂuid and structure ﬁelds have diﬀerent scales of time. The global time step is

usually commanded by the ﬂuid. Although the use of the same time step for the ﬂuid and the

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 257

structure may provide some implementation advantages, the procedure with subcycles of factor

n

SF

¼ Dt

S

=Dt

F

(where Dt

S

and Dt

F

are the time intervals adopted for the structure and the ﬂuid,

respectively) may oﬀer substantial computational advantages, including an economy of CPU time

due to the smaller number of time steps in the structural analysis and an economy in the infor-

mation transfer. The partitioned algorithm with subcycles adopted in the present work consists in

the following steps (see Fig. 3):

(a) Set the initial conditions for the structure and the ﬂuid.

(b) Update the structure displacements, velocities, accelerations and stresses.

(c) Update the ﬂuid velocities, speciﬁc mass, pressure and total energy using subcycles.

(c.1) Compute the new mesh taken into account the structural motion.

(c.2) Update the ﬂuid ﬂow variables with the new boundary conditions.

(d) Update the structural variables with the loads transferred by the ﬂuid.

(e) Repeat steps (c) and (d) until the objectives of the simulation are reached.

Kinematics boundary conditions, taken into account the structural motion, must be applied to

the ﬂuid domain. Therefore, at the ﬂuid–structure interface the following condition must be

satisﬁed:

x

nþ1

i

¸

¸

C

F

¼

tþDt

x

i

¸

¸

C

E

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð35Þ

where x

nþ1

i

j

C

F

and

tþDt

x

i

j

C

E

are the updated coordinates for the instant t þ Dt at the ﬂuid and solid

interfaces C

F

and C

E

, respectively. For viscous ﬂuids the same velocity components are prescribed

for the mesh, the ﬂuid and the structure at the interface. Therefore,

w

nþ1

i

¸

¸

C

F

¼ v

nþ1

i

¸

¸

C

F

¼

tþDt

_ u

i

¸

¸

¸

C

E

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð36Þ

For non-viscous ﬂuids the corresponding prescribed boundary conditions are:

w

nþ1

i

¸

¸

C

F

Á n

i

¼ v

nþ1

i

¸

¸

C

F

Á n

i

¼

tþDt

_ u

i

¸

¸

¸

C

E

Á n

i

ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ ð37Þ

where n

i

is the normal vector with respect to the interface surface at time t þ Dt. Eq. (37) is applied

to each node located in the interface surface.

Fig. 3. Algorithm for ﬂuid–structure interaction with subcycles.

258 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

5. Numerical applications

5.1. Supersonic inviscid ﬂow over a ﬂat plate

In this example a supersonic inviscid ﬂow over a ﬂat plate, which is clamped on both ends, as

shown in Fig. 4, is analyzed. The plate length, width and thickness are 0.5 m, 0.2 m and 1.35 mm,

respectively. The density of the ﬂuid is q

F

¼ 0:339 kg/m

3

, while the plate has the following

properties: speciﬁc mass q

E

¼ 2710 kg/m

3

, Young’s modulus E ¼ 77:28 GPa and Poisson’s ratio

m ¼ 0:33. In this problem, a value equal to 5.0 was adopted for CC, deﬁned in Eq. (6).

Initially the plate is subject to the same pressure on both sides. It is assumed that the pressure

on the inferior face of the plate falls 0.1% instantaneously and remains in this condition for 4 ls,

originating displacements in the plate and disturbances in the ﬂow. After this period, this pressure

x

y

z

v

2

=0.0

v

2

=0.0

v.n=0

v

3

=0.0

ρ

∞

, v

i∞

, ε

∞

Fig. 4. Geometry and boundary conditions in the ﬂuid domain for the example of a supersonic inviscid ﬂow over a ﬂat

plate.

Fig. 5. General view of the ﬁnite element mesh for the ﬂuid domain.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 259

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

-0.002

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

Mach = 1.9

Mach = 2.0

Mach = 2.02

Mach = 2.05

displacement (m)

in x=0.35m

time (s)

Fig. 6. Displacements of the plate in x ¼ 0:35 m along the time, for Mach ¼1.9, 2.0, 2.02 and 2.05.

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

-0.002

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

Mach = 2.0

Rifai et al., 1999

displacement (m)

in x=0.35m

time (s)

Fig. 7. Comparison of the displacements in x ¼ 0:35 m obtained by the present work for Mach¼2.0 and by Rifai et al.

[4] for Mach¼1.98.

260 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

returns to its initial value of 28 kPa. The solution of the linear aeroelastic problem indicates a limit

of stability with a critical Mach number equal to 2.0 using the piston theory [23]; above this value,

continuous growth of oscillations amplitudes are observed and instability of the plate occurs.

The domain discretization is accomplished such that the ﬂuid tetrahedral faces adjacent to the

plate are coincident with the triangles belonging to the structure, although this fact would not be

necessary for the solution scheme. 13303 nodes and 38915 tetrahedral elements for the mesh of the

ﬂuid domain and 506 nodes and 508 triangular elements for the structural mesh are used. This

inviscid ﬂow has a two-dimensional behavior, only one layer of elements is adopted to discretize

the domain in the direction of the axis z, transverse to the ﬂow. A general view of the mesh is

shown in Fig. 5. The boundary conditions imposed to the ﬂuid are shown in Fig. 4, while in the

plate are imposed the following conditions: u ¼ v ¼ w ¼ hx ¼ hy ¼ hz ¼ 0:0 in the clamped ends

and w ¼ hx ¼ hy ¼ 0:0 in the plane of symmetry xy.

Fig. 8. Pressure distribution for Mach ¼2.0 at t ¼ 0:07 s.

Fig. 9. Conﬁgurations of the clamped plate for Mach ¼2.0 at t ¼ 0:03, 0.07 and 0.1 s.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 261

In a ﬁrst analysis, simulations are accomplished with Mach numbers around the critical value

predicted by the analytical solution using the piston theory [22]. Results of the displacement of

the plate in x ¼ 0:35 m along the time are shown in Fig. 6 for Mach numbers ¼1.9, 2.0, 2.02 and

2.05. These results were obtained using to analyze the plate time steps equal to 1.8 ·10

À7

s for

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

-0.02

-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Linear

Non linear

displacement (m)

in x=0.35m

time (s)

Fig. 10. Comparison of the displacements in x ¼ 0:35 m between the geometrically linear and non-linear solutions with

Mach¼2.3.

Fig. 11. Description of the problem to study the interaction between air ﬂow and a ﬂexible membrane.

262 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

Mach¼1.9 and 1.75 · 10

À7

s for Mach¼2.0, 2.02 and 2.05. It is observed that the critical Mach

number obtained here is practically equal to the value predicted by the solution using the piston

theory (Mach¼2.0). In Fig. 7 these results are compared with those obtained by Rifai et al. [4] (in

this work a critical Mach number equal to 1.98 was found). It is noticed that, although a little

discrepancy stays among these results, the amplitudes are very close. The pressure distribution in

the domain for a Mach number ¼2.0 at the instant t ¼ 0:07 s is shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 9 presents

the plate conﬁgurations and values of vertical displacements at t ¼ 0:03, 0.07 and 0.1 s.

A comparison between the linear and the non-linear behaviour of the plate is performed for

Mach number ¼2.3 and a time step Dt ¼ 1:6 Â 10

À7

s, whose displacements in x ¼ 0:35 m are

shown in Fig. 10. The geometrically linear solution, as well as the solution based in the piston

theory [22], presents an exponential growth of the oscillations, while the geometrically non-linear

solution presents limited displacement amplitudes. The diﬀerence between the two solutions is

attributed to the coupling between membrane and bending eﬀects in the panel when non-linear

elasticity due to ﬁnite displacements is considered. This phenomenon increases the eﬀective

stiﬀness of the plate, modifying the behaviour and the response of the system.

Fig. 12. Finite element mesh. (a) General view. (b) Detail of the region close to the membrane.

Table 1

Air and membrane properties

Membrane properties Value Air properties Value

Young’s modulus, E 3.333 ·10

8

N/m

2

Sound speed, C

1

345 m/s

Poisson’s ratio, m 0.0 Kinematic viscosity, l 17.9 · 10

À6

Pa s

Speciﬁc mass, q

E

1000 kg/m

3

Speciﬁc mass, q

F

1.21 kg/m

3

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 263

As the structure of this example presents relatively small displacements, the analysis may be

carried out using the simpliﬁed mesh movement algorithm described previously in Section 2.3. It

is obtained the same results for the displacements along the time, in simulations with Mach¼2.20,

using the complete and simpliﬁed mesh movement algorithms. The speed-up obtained with the

simpliﬁed algorithm in relation to the complete algorithm is 1.83, even with the fall of Mﬂops

(from 888 to 670 in a CRAY T-94 computer). The reason of this result is the diﬀerence of

computational cost that the mesh movement algorithm represents with respect to the total CPU

time. While the complete algorithm represents 45.82% of the total CPU time, the simpliﬁed

algorithm represents only 0.74%.

Fig. 13. Pressure distribution at the instants: (a) 1.5 s, (b) 3.0 s, (c) 6.0 s, (d) 9.0 s, (e) 10.5 s and (f) 12.0 s.

264 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

5.2. Air ﬂow past an inﬂated membrane

The interaction between air ﬂow (considered as an incompressible ﬂow) and a ﬂexible mem-

brane is analyzed. The problem is described in Fig. 11. The membrane has a semi-cylindrical

format with diameter d and thickness h equal to 20 m and 3.0 mm, respectively, and is clamped at

both ends.

The external boundary of the ﬂuid domain is a semi-cylinder with radius R and width L in the

perpendicular direction to the plane where the ﬂow take place equal to 200 and 1 m, respectively.

At the external boundary a velocity proﬁle, which is a function of the distance with respect to the

ground level, is prescribed. This velocity is referred to the velocity at 10 m above the ground level,

Fig. 14. Velocity vectors at the instants: (a) 1.5 s, (b) 3.0 s, (c) 6.0 s, (d) 9.0 s, (e) 10.5 s and (f) 12.0 s.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 265

which varies with time as shown in Fig. 11. A reference pressure p ¼ 0 is prescribed in the point

located in the external boundary condition, 200 m above the ground level. The air and membrane

properties are given in Table 1. The internal pressure p

0

which keeps the membrane inﬂated, is

taken equal to 60% of the air stagnation pressure at a velocity of 28 m/s (p

0

¼ 285:0 Pa).

Due to the existence of air inside the space covered by the membrane, a damping matrix is

included to analyze the structure. A Rayleigh viscous damping is adopted, which means that

C ¼ aM þ bK ð38Þ

Fig. 15. Mesh conﬁgurations in the ﬂuid domain at: (a) 1.5 s, (b) 3.0 s, (c) 6.0 s, (d) 9.0 s, (e) 10.5 s and (f) 12.0 s.

266 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

where C, M and K are the damping, mass and stiﬀness matrices, respectively. Considering a linear

behaviour, adopting damping ratios equal to n

1

¼ 1:0% and n

2

¼ 2:0% for the ﬁrst and second

modes, respectively, and calculating the corresponding circular frequencies x

1

and x

2

the coef-

ﬁcient a and b can be determined by the procedure described by Bathe [16]. For this case,

a ¼ 0:003529 and b ¼ 0:443162 are obtained.

Although this case is essentially a two-dimensional problem and beam elements for the

structure may be used, a three-dimensional code is employed, where the membrane model was

built with triangular ﬂat elements and the ﬂuid domain was discretized with tetrahedral elements.

In the perpendicular direction to the ﬂow, only one layer of elements is used.

The non-structured ﬁnite element mesh in the ﬂuid domain has 20 550 tetrahedral elements and

7097 nodes, as indicated in Fig. 12. The structural mesh has 124 nodes and 124 triangular ele-

ments (these elements are coincident with the faces of the tetrahedral elements at the ﬂuid–

structure interface). The prescribed boundary conditions on the lateral ends are w ¼ h

x

¼ h

y

¼ 0

for the plate and v

3

¼ 0 for the ﬂuid domain.

As Reynolds number in this problem is relatively high (Re ¼ 1:9 Â 10

7

), if it is determined with

a reference velocity equal to 28 m/s and a reference length equal to the radius of the structure

(10 m), a simple algebraic turbulence model is used. The Reynolds stresses are modeled using a

generalization of the Prandtl mixing length hypothesis [24]. This model was also employed by

Mittal and Tezduyar [25], and consists in the addition of a eddy viscosity l

T

to the molecular

kinematic viscosity l. The eddy viscosity is given by the following expression:

l

T

¼ ðKlÞ

2

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1

2

ov

i

ox

j

þ

ov

j

ox

i

_ _

:

ov

i

ox

j

þ

ov

j

ox

i

_ _

¸

ð39Þ

where K ¼ 0:41 is the Von Karman constant and l is the shortest distance between the point

where l

T

will be determined and the closest wall to this point.

A time interval Dt

F

¼ 1:25 Â 10

À3

s is adopted for the ﬂuid domain, while a time step

Dt

S

¼ 1:25 Â 10

À4

s is used to analyze the membrane. Pressure distributions, velocity vectors and

Fig. 16. Geometry and boundary conditions for the panel vibration induced by vortex shedding originated by a rigid

ﬁxed rectangular prism.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 267

mesh conﬁgurations in the ﬂuid domain are shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15, respectively for t ¼ 1:5,

3.0, 6.0, 9.0, 10.5 and 12.0 s. An overpressure on the left-hand side of the ﬁeld and an under-

pressure over the middle and the right-hand side of the ﬁeld are shown in Fig. 13. The re-

bouncing of the membrane, while a vortex is being generated downstream of the structure, is

Table 2

Fluid and panel properties

Properties Value

Young’s modulus, E 2.5 MN/cm

2

Poisson’s ratio, m 0.35

Speciﬁc mass, q

E

0.1 g/cm

3

Sound speed, C

1

34 500 cm/s

Speciﬁc mass, q

F

1.18 ·10

À3

g/cm

3

Kinematic viscosity, l 1.82 ·10

À4

g/cms

Fig. 17. Finite element mesh for the ﬂuid domain. (a) General view. (b) Detail in the region close to the panel.

268 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

shown in Fig. 14 at ﬁrst 3 s. Within the subsequent 3 s, at a constant free-stream velocity, nearly

steady conditions are attained. When the free stream velocity increases from v

10

¼ 14 to 28 m/s

(t ¼ 6–9 s), the membrane moves again to the right pushed by the air ﬂow and the vortex for-

mation downstream, behind the membrane, becomes pronounced. Following this initial phase the

free-stream air velocity remains constant and the periodic development and detachment of vor-

tices in correspondence with the membrane structure movement is indicated in Fig. 14. It is ob-

served in Fig. 15 the distortion of the ﬁnite element mesh at diﬀerent times and a good

performance of the mesh movement algorithm was obtained.

tempo (s)

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

c

m

)

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

c

m

)

0 1 2 3

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Present work

Wall and Ramm, 1998

tempo (s)

0 1 2 3

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Present work

Wall and Ramm, 1998

time (s) time (s)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 18. Comparison of results obtained in this work and those obtained by Wall and Ramm [17]. (a) Displacements of

the panel at the end. (b) Displacements of the panel at the mid span.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 269

Membrane conﬁgurations obtained in the present work are very similar to those presented by

Argyris et al. [26]. However, pressure distributions and velocity vectors here show vortices gen-

erated downstream of the structure that was not well captured by the above mentioned reference,

probably because the ﬁnite element mesh was poorly reﬁned (taking into account the charac-

teristics of this problem).

5.3. Panel vibration induced by vortex shedding originated by a ﬁxed rectangular prism

A ﬂexible panel is clamped in a ﬁxed rigid rectangular prism, which generates vortex shedding

inducing vibrations on the deformable structure. This problem is described in Fig. 16 using

Fig. 19. Mesh conﬁgurations at (a) t ¼ 3:765 s and (b) t ¼ 3:85899 s.

270 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

dimensionless values. The ﬂuid is considered as slightly compressible and Re ¼ 332. Although this

case is essentially a two-dimensional problem, a three-dimensional code is used, where tetrahedral

elements are employed for the ﬂuid domain and ﬂat plate elements for the ﬂexible panel. The

boundary conditions on the lateral ends are w ¼ h

x

¼ h

y

¼ 0 for the plate and v

3

¼ 0 for the ﬂuid

domain. Fluid and panel properties are given in Table 2. Bearman [27] performed a detailed

experimental study and clariﬁed the various regimes of the ﬂow encountered by varying the

splitter plate length for range of Reynolds number.

A non-structured mesh with 19198 tetrahedral elements and 6544 nodes, with only one layer of

elements in the perpendicular direction to the ﬂow, is used for the ﬂuid domain and is shown in

Fig. 17, while the structural mesh has 84 triangular plate elements and 84 nodes. The ﬂuid–

structure interaction takes place at both sides of the panel (it means that there are two ﬂuid–

structure interfaces).

Fig. 20. Pressure distributions at (a) t ¼ 3:765 s and (b) t ¼ 3:85899 s.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 271

Simulation of the dynamic behaviour of the panel was carried out using a time interval

Dt ¼ 3:0 Â 10

À5

s. Displacement at the free and at the mid span are shown in Fig. 18, and are

compared with those obtained by Wall and Ramm [28]. These authors use a two-dimensional

code.

Some discrepancies can be observed between the results of the present work and those obtained

by Wall and Ramm [28]. Reasons of these diﬀerences are very diﬃcult to establish because both

works use diﬀerent schemes, diﬀerent meshes and the structure was modeled with beam elements,

whereas in the present work thin plate elements were used. Mesh conﬁgurations and pressure

distributions at t ¼ 3:765 and 3.8589 s are shown in Fig. 19 and Fig. 20, respectively.

6. Conclusions

A partitioned algorithm for the solution of ﬂuid–structure interaction problems using a two-

step Taylor–Galerkin method for the ﬂuid in the ALE formulation and the Newmark implicit

scheme for the solution of the structural dynamic equations is presented in this work. The po-

tential of the method was shown through several examples of compressible and slightly com-

pressible ﬂows acting on ﬂexible structures (plates and shells) and good results were obtained. The

diﬀerences between the dynamic responses of a linear and a non-linear system were studied in the

example of a supersonic inviscid ﬂow acting on a deformable ﬂat plate. It was also veriﬁed that

using procedures with subcycles, the precision of the results are reduced and the number of

iterations to obtain the convergence of the solution of the equilibrium equations of the structure

increases. But, it was also observed that the decrease in computer processing time may become

expressive when a non-structured mesh with very diﬀerent size of elements are used. The method

of mesh movement adopted here was shown to be eﬃcient and the complete and simpliﬁed

algorithms were tested. The complete scheme has much more accuracy, however it requires a

considerable CPU time, disadvantage that can be avoided using the simpliﬁed scheme, which has

reasonable precision for problems with small displacements. Finally, the good performance of the

vectorized algorithms was veriﬁed. Speeds going from 670 to 888 Mﬂops in a Cray T94 computer

and with a CPU time of the order of 1.2–2.3 · 10

À5

s/Dt node have been obtained.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank CNPq and CAPES for the ﬁnancial support.

References

[1] Felker FF. Direct solution of two-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations for static aeroelasticity problems. AIAA J

1993;31(1):148–53.

[2] Blom FJ. A monolithical ﬂuid–structure interaction algorithm applied to the piston problem. Comput Methods

Appl Mech Eng 1998;167:369–91.

[3] Soria A, Casadei F. Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian multicomponent compressible ﬂow with ﬂuid–structure

interaction. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1997;25:1263–84.

272 P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

[4] Rifai SM et al. Multiphysics simulation of ﬂow-induced vibrations and aeroelasticity on parallel computing

platforms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1999;174:393–417.

[5] Farhat C, Lesoinne M, Maman N. Mixed explicit/implicit time integration of coupled aeroelastic problems: three-

ﬁeld formulation, geometric conservation and distributed solution. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1995;21:807–35.

[6] Cebral JR, L€ ohner R. Conservative load projection and tracking for ﬂuid–structure problems. AIAA J

1997;35:687–92.

[7] Farhat C, Lesoinne M, LeTallec P. Load and motion transfer algorithms for ﬂuid/structure interaction problems

with non-matching discrete interfaces: momentum and energy conservation, optimal discretization and application

to aeroelasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998;157:95–114.

[8] Zienkiewicz OC, L€ onher R, Morgan KO, Peraire J. High speed compressible ﬂow and other advection-dominated

problems of ﬂuid dynamics. In: Gallagher R, et al., editors. Finite elements in ﬂuids, vol. 6. 1988. p. 41–8.

[9] Teixeira PRF, Awruch AM. Three-dimensional simulation of high compressible ﬂows using a multi-time-step

integration technique with subcycles. Appl Math Modell 2001;25/7:613–27.

[10] Hirt CW, Amdsen AA, Cook JL. An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian computing method for all ﬂow speeds.

J Comput Phys 1974;14:227–53.

[11] Hughes TJR, Liu WK, Zimmerman TK. Lagrangian Eulerian ﬁnite element formulation for incompressible

viscous ﬂows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1981;29:329–49.

[12] Donea J, Giuliani S, Halleux JP. An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian ﬁnite element method for transient dynamic

ﬂuid–structure interactions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1982;33:689–723.

[13] Benson DJ. An eﬃcient accurate simple ALE method for non-linear ﬁnite element programs. Comput Methods

Appl Mech Eng 1989;72:305–50.

[14] Liu WK, Chang H, Chen JS, Belytschko T. Arbitrary Lagrangean–Eulerian Petrov–Galerkin ﬁnite elements for

non-linear continua. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1988;68:259–310.

[15] Zhang Q, Um L, Wenqi K. Geometric non-linear analysis of space shell structures using generalized conforming

ﬂat shell elements––for space shell structures. Commun Numer Methods Eng 1998;14:941–57.

[16] Bathe K. Finite element procedures. Englewood Cliﬀs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 1996.

[17] Chung TJ. Finite element analysis ﬂuid dynamic. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

[18] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The ﬁnite element method solid and ﬂuid mechanics dynamics and nonlinearity, vol.

2. 4th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 1991.

[19] Richtmeyer RD, Morton KW. Diﬀerence methods for initial value problems. New York: Interscience; 1967.

[20] Peraire J et al. Finite element Euler computations in three dimensions. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1988;26:2135–59.

[21] Monteuﬀel TA. An incomplete factorization technique for positive deﬁnite linear systems. Math Comput

1980;34:473–97.

[22] Meijerink JA, Van der Vorst HA. Guidelines of the usage of incomplete decomposition in solving sets of linear

equations as they occur in practical problems. J Comp Phys 1981;44:134–55.

[23] Dowell EH. Aeroelasticity of plates and shells. The Netherlands: Noordhof Int. Publ., Leyden; 1975.

[24] Schlichting H. Boundary-layer theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1968.

[25] Mittal S, Tezduyar TE. Parallel ﬁnite element simulation of 3D incompressible ﬂows: Fluid–structure interactions.

Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1995;21:933–53.

[26] Argyris J et al. Ta pamsa qei. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 1985;21:289–362.

[27] Bearman PW. Investigation of the ﬂow behind a two dimensional model with a blunt trailing edge and ﬁtted with

splitter plates. J Fluid Mech 1965;21:241–55.

[28] Wall WA, Ramm E. Fluid–structure interaction based upon a stabilized (ALE) ﬁnite element method. In: Idelshon

S, editor. Comput Mech. Barcelona: CIMNE; 1998.

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 273

250

P.R.F. Teixeira, A.M. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273

1. Introduction Important progress has been obtained in the solution of complex ﬂuid–structure interaction problems in recent years, allowing the study of multidisciplinary applications in diﬀerent engineering areas. This progress is due mainly to the increase of the speed of modern computers, to the evolution of multidisciplinary solution algorithms and of pre- and post-processing tools. The methods of simulation of ﬂuid–structure interaction problems are divided basically in two groups called partitioned and monolithic schemes [1,2]. In the partitioned schemes the governing equations of the ﬂuid and the structure are integrated in time alternately in an isolated way. In the monolithic schemes the two ﬁelds are considered as a single entity, allowing to integrate in time the two subdomains simultaneously. In partitioned schemes such as proposed by Soria and Casadei [3], Rifai et al. [4], Farhat et al. [5], Cebral and L€hner [6] and many other authors, the o kinematic and dynamic boundary conditions in the interface are the unique information changed between the subdomains. In these schemes each sub-domain can be solved by discretization techniques and by eﬃcient solution algorithms in an individual way. New methods and models can be introduced in a modular way in order to get more ﬂexibility. Besides, the meshes of each subdomain can be built without the coincidence of ﬂuid and structural nodes at the interfaces [6,7]. These modular characteristics and ﬂexibility may be extremely convenient. An algorithm to simulate ﬂuid–structure interaction problems using a partitioned scheme is presented in this work. A two-step explicit Taylor–Galerkin scheme [8,9], with linear tetrahedral ﬁnite elements is employed. An arbritary Lagrangean–Eulerian (ALE) description is adopted for the ﬂuid domain, while for the structural domain an updated Lagrangean formulation is considered. The ALE description was ﬁrst presented by Hirt et al. [10] and after this method was used by several authors such as Hughes et al. [11], Donea et al. [12], Benson [13], Liu et al. [14] among others. The structure is analyzed using generalized conforming triangular plates and shell elements with drilling degrees of freedom [15]. Geometrically non-linear eﬀects are included. The Newmark method [16] is employed to integrate in time the dynamic equilibrium equation. The non-linear and the algebraic systems are solved using an incremental-iterative scheme and the conjugate gradient method, respectively. The code was vectorized to take advantages of vectorial processors. Several problems are used to validate the methods developed in this work and illustrate the diﬀerence between linear and non-linear aeroelastic computations.

2. The ﬂuid dynamic solver 2.1. The explicit two-step Taylor–Galerkin scheme for high compressible ﬂows In the ALE description, the computational frame is a reference independent of the particle movement and may be moving with an arbitrary velocity in the laboratory system (this motion is called the ‘‘mesh’’ motion in the ﬁnite element formulation); the continuum view from this reference is denoted as Xv and the coordinates of any point are denoted as v [14]. The equations expressing mass, momentum and energy conservation in ALE formulation may be written in a compact form as

Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 251 .M.P. A. Teixeira.F.R.

oV .

.

þ oFi ¼ wi oV ot .

corresponding to the time interval ½tn . the unknown vector V at t ¼ tnþ1=2 is expanded in Taylor series. In the Taylor–Galerkin scheme. 3Þ ð1Þ with Fi ¼ FiA þ FiD and 8 8 9 9 qvi > q > > > > > > > > > > > > qv1 vi þ pdi1 > > > < qv1 = < = V ¼ qv2 . qe vi ðqe þ pÞ 9 0 > > > > Às1i = Às2i ði. 2. Àsij vj À kij oT =oxj 8 > > > > < ð2Þ where vi and wi are the ﬂuid and the mesh velocity components in the direction of the spatial coordinate xi respectively. 2. this approach can be interpreted as the ﬁnite element version of the Lax–Wendroﬀ scheme used in ﬁnite diﬀerences [19]. Using a linear shape function N associated with each node to interpolate Vn . j ¼ 1. conservation equations are expanded in time by Taylor series. the following equation is obtained: " Z ! ! ! # Z Z Dt oN n n n nþ1=2 nþ1=2 n oN ¼ N dX V À dX Fi À Nwi dX V XE VE n n oxi n 2 oxi XE XE XE ði ¼ 1. tnþ1=2 . e is the total speciﬁc energy and kij are the components of the conductivity tensor. and after. Initial and boundary conditions must be added to these equations in order to deﬁne uniquely the problem. q is the density. T is the temperature. VE is a constant value at element level and the upper bar indicates nodal variables.v oxi oxi ði ¼ 1. Eq. p is the thermodynamic pressure. Finally. [8]. > > > qv3 > > qv3 vi þ pdi3 > > > > > > > > > > > : : . . Using again the same shape functions. 2. 3Þ nþ1=2 nþ1=2 ð3Þ where XE is the element volume. (1) is complemented by the equation of state for an ideal gas and by the constitutive equations. sij are the components of the deviatoric stress tensor. as indicated by Zienkiewicz et al. A two-step method is used. 2. FiA ¼ qv2 vi þ pdi2 . the unknown vector at t ¼ tnþ1 is expanded in Taylor series. vector V contains the conservation or the ﬁeld variables and Fi are the components of the ﬂux variables (FiA contains the advective terms and FiD the viscous terms). In the ﬁrst step. 3Þ ð4Þ CE nþ1=2 . In the second step. and applying the Bubnov–Galerkin method. a constant shape function PE ¼ 1 associated with element E to interpolate Vnþ1=2 and applying the classical Galerkin weighted residual method to the expression resulting from Taylor series expansion. 3Þ FiD ¼ > > > > Às3i > > > > : . dij is the Kronecker delta. the following equation is obtained for the second step: ! ! ! Z Z Z nþ1=2 oN nþ1 n nþ1=2 nþ1=2 T T À wi N N dX V ¼ N N dX V þ Dt dX Fi V nþ1=2 ox i Xnþ1 Xn XE E E ! Z nþ1=2 nþ1=2 nþ1=2 Nli dC FBi À wBi VB À Dt ði ¼ 1. space discretization is accomplished by the classical Bubnov–Galerkin scheme [16–18].

3Þ ð10Þ . The proposed scheme is conditionally stable. the consistent mass matrix is substituted by the lumped mass matrix. may be expressed by the following equation: oq 1 op oUi ¼ 2 ¼À ot c ot oxi ði ¼ 1.2. j ¼ 1. it is necessary to add numerical damping to the ﬂow solver. (8) is given by the following expression: Ui nþ1=2 ð9Þ e nþ1=2 À Dt o Dp ¼ Ui 4 oxi ði ¼ 1.252 P. In Eq. 2. Expanding the momentum conservation equations in Taylor series. 3Þ þ À wj i 2 oxj oxj oxi oxi Eq. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 where Cnþ1=2 is the boundary of the element domain Xnþ1=2 and li is the cosine of the angle formed E E nþ1=2 with the positive direction of the reference axis xi . and the local stability condition is applied.M.0. 3Þ ð7Þ where c is the sound speed and Ui ¼ qvi ði ¼ 1. assuming constant entropy. 3Þ Ui 2 ot 2 oxj oxj oxi 2 oxi oxi ð8Þ where fij ¼ vj Ui ði. [20]. Index B is by the outward normal axis to CE referred to values at the boundary of the element domain. the following expression is obtained for the ﬁrst step: n n Dt oUin Dt ofij osn opn 1 o Dp ij nþ1=2 n n n oUi ¼ Ui À ¼ Ui þ þ þ À wj À ði. specially in the presence of strong shocks. CC is a global constant speciﬁed by the user. An artiﬁcial viscosity is added explicitly to the non-smoothed solution.R. and then this equation is solved iteratively. The constant CC must be E E speciﬁed with care in order to avoid interferences of the artiﬁcial and physical viscosities.0 and 10. A. The two-step Taylor–Galerkin scheme for slightly compressible ﬂows Mass conservation for slightly compressible ﬂuids. (4). respectively. 3Þ. Mn C and Mn L are the consistent and lumped mass matrices. Teixeira. 2. with Dp ¼ pnþ1 À pn . Using n n ofij osn opn ij n oUi e inþ1=2 ¼ U n À Dt U À ði. j ¼ 1. is adopted. 2. [8.9]). Mnþ1 L is where and V are the smoothed and non-smoothed solution at t ¼ t the assembled lumped mass matrix at t ¼ tnþ1 The vector D is given by X n D¼ CFLE CCS E ½Mn C À Mn L VE E E E nþ1 Vs ð6Þ where E is an index referred to a speciﬁc element. as follows Vs nþ1 ¼V nþ1 þ ðMnþ1 ÞÀ1 D L nþ1 nþ1 ð5Þ respectively. 2. CFLE is the local Courant number. 2.F. 2. In order to stabilize numerically the solution. In this work the viscosity model. as given by Peraire et al. 3Þ and pnþ1=2 ¼ pn þ 1=2 Dp. j ¼ 1. S E is a coeﬃcient of pressure distribution (see Refs. CC varies between 2. 2.

j ¼ 1. Teixeira. (3) determine Ui Uinþ1=2 with Eq. (7) in time and using Eq. 2. (11) and calculate pnþ1 ¼ pn þ Dp. A. (12). 2. 3Þ ð16Þ . 2. 2. 3Þ p XE UiE 4 Xnþ1=2 oxi T Z ð14Þ ð15Þ Z Xnþ1 Z Z nþ1 n T N N dX Ui ¼ N N dX Ui þ Dt T oNT dX f nþ1=2 À wnþ1=2 Unþ1=2 ij j i E Xn Xnþ1=2 oxj Z Z T T oN oN À Dt N dX n þ Dt sij N dX n þ D=2 p p Xnþ1=2 oxj Xnþ1=2 oxi Z nþ1=2 nþ1=2 nþ1=2 NT nj dC ðf ij À wj Ui ÞE À Dt nþ1=2 C Z Z T T n p þ Dt N Nnj dC ij À Dt s N Nni dC n þ D=2 p Cnþ1=2 Cnþ1=2 ði. (9). Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 253 Discretizing Eq. after space discretization. (10). (9).F.M. 2. (11). 3Þ dX U iE À N ni dC U iE Xnþ1=2 oxi Cnþ1=2 Z Dt oN nþ1=2 nþ1=2 nþ1=2 e nþ1=2 ¼ XE U iE À dX D ði ¼ 1. it is obtained: " # e 1 oUinþ1=2 o U inþ1=2 Dt o o Dp Dq ¼ 2 Dp ¼ ÀDt À ði ¼ 1. respectively: Z Z Z Dt oN oN n nþ1=2 e nþ1=2 n À sij ¼ N dX Ui À dX f ij dX n XE U iE 2 Xn Xn oxj Xn oxj Z Z oN n n n oN þ dX À p Nwj dX Ui ði. (4) determine Uinþ1 with Eq. (10). 3Þ ð13Þ oxj Xn oxi Xn Z Z 1 Dt2 oNT oN T oN N 2 N dX þ dX À N ni dX D p c oxi 4 Xnþ1=2 oxi oxi Xnþ1=2 Cnþ1=2 Z Z oNT nþ1=2 nþ1=2 T e e ¼ Dt ði ¼ 1. j ¼ 1. (2) determine Dp with Eq. 2.P. by the following algorithm: (1) determine e nþ1=2 with Eq. 3Þ ¼ ÀDt c 4 oxi oxi oxi oxi The second time step is given by the following expression: Uinþ1 ¼ Uin þ Dt oUi ot nþ1=2 ð11Þ ofij ¼ Uin À Dt oxj nþ1=2 osij À oxj nþ1=2 opnþ1=2 oU þ À wnþ1=2 i j oxi oxi nþ1=2 ! ði. (10) and (12). 3Þ ð12Þ Then the ﬂow is analyzed. Considering the same shape functions used in compressible ﬂows and applying the classical Galerkin method for space discretization. the following matrix expressions are obtained for Eqs.R. j ¼ 1.

254 P. favouring the inﬂuence of points i. conserving prescribed velocities in moving and stationary boundary surfaces. .3. 1): ns P aij wj j¼1 ð17Þ wi ¼ P ns aij j¼1 where ns is the total number of points belonging to the boundary surfaces and aij are the inﬂuence coeﬃcients between the point i inside the domain and the point j of the boundary surface given by the following expression: aij ¼ 1 4 dij ð18Þ with dij being the distance between the points i and j. Fig. In this equation the boundary integral involving the pressure increment in the left hand side could be omitted. The mesh movement algorithm adopted in this work uses a smoothing procedure for the velocities based in these boundary surfaces. 2. located closer to the boundary surface containing point j. Distances from the boundary surfaces to a point ‘‘i’’ in the ﬂuid domain. (13)–(16) the index E indicates that the corresponding variables are taken with a constant value over the element domain.F. aij has an high value. (10) is examined. Eq. The other reason is that on traction boundaries. A. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 In Eqs. aij represents the weight that each point j of the boundary surface has on the value of the mesh velocity at points i inside the domain. The algorithm for mesh movement The mesh velocity ﬁeld w is computed looking for small element distortions. It is observed that on boundaries where the velocities are prescribed o Dp=oxi ¼ 0. 1. One of the reason for this simpliﬁcation is apparent if Eq. In other words. no change of traction occurs and then Dp ¼ 0 [18].R. When dij is small. Teixeira. (14) is solved using the conjugate gradient method with diagonal pre-conditioning.M. The updating of the mesh velocity at a point i of the ﬁnite element domain is based on the mesh velocity of the points j belonging to the boundary surfaces in the following way (see Fig.

M. The thin plate triangular element. (17). It consists of choosing previously for each point inside the ﬂuid domain at least two surface points having important inﬂuence in the calculation of the mesh velocity according to Eq. . Each of these two points have the largest values of coeﬃcient aij among all the other points in its respective surface because each one is the closest point of the respective surface with respect to the node where the mesh velocity will be determined. (17). in which the compatibility conditions at each node and along each side are applied. A typical membrane triangular element is adopted where each point has two degrees of freedom of translation uxi and uyi ði ¼ 1. The total stiﬀness matrix of the element is obtained by the overlap of the membrane stiﬀness matrix with the bending stiﬀness matrix. 2) [15]. 3Þ in the plane of the element middle surface. 3. The structural dynamic solver with a triangular thin plate element A generalized conforming triangular thin plate element with six degrees of freedom in each node (three displacements and three rotations components). it must be used a point of each body surface to calculate the mesh velocities ﬁeld inside the ﬂuid domain. Therefore. Teixeira. 2. but considering only one point in each boundary surface.F. this procedure uses the same Eq.P. A. The method can be generalized when there are two or more body surfaces. One of these points belongs to the moving body surface and the other one to the external ﬁxed surface. In this case.R. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 255 In the present work a variation to simplify this method and safe computer time was adopted for the case in which the displacement of the body surface is not signiﬁcantly high. 2. 3Þ and one of rotation hzi ði ¼ 1. 2. is used in the present work (see Fig. The membrane displacements are expressed in the following way: um ¼ ½ ux uy T ¼ Nm ue m ð19Þ where ue is the nodal membrane generalized displacements vector given by m Fig. corresponding to the node which have the smallest distance with respect of the point inside the ﬂuid domain where the mesh velocity will be computed.

The constitutive matrices Dm and Db are given. 3Þ ð25Þ ði. KLbi ¼ BT Db Bbi dX ði ¼ 1. 2 2 bi ¼ yj À ym . 2. m ¼ 1. 2. m ¼ 1.R. Finally. ci ¼ xm À xj ði. Teixeira. Nb is the bending interpolation function given by Nbi ¼ ½ Ni with Ni ¼ Li À 2Fi þ ð1 À rj ÞFj þ ð1 þ rm ÞFm Nxi ¼ À1½bm Li Lj À bj Lm Li þ ðbj À bm ÞFi þ ðrj bj þ bm ÞFj þ ðrm bm À bj ÞFm 2 Nyi ¼ À1½cm Li Lj À cj Lm Li þ ðcj À cm ÞFi þ ðrj cj þ cm ÞFj þ ðrm cm À cj ÞFm 2 Fi ¼ Li ðLi À 0:5ÞðLi À 1Þ. respectively. 2. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 ue ¼ ½ uxi mi uyi hzi T ði ¼ 1. respectively. the strain–displacement relations are .M. by the following expressions: Z Z T KLmi ¼ Bmi Dm Bmi dX. 2. respectively. D ¼ 4 m 1 0 ð28Þ 1 À m2 12ð1 À m2 Þ 0 0 ð1 À mÞ=2 where h is the elements thickness. 2. and hxi and hyi the nodal rotations around the axes x and y. 3Þ The transverse displacement ﬁeld is discretized by u z ¼ Nb u e b ð21Þ ð22Þ ð23Þ where ue is the nodal bending generalized displacements vector. 2. A. 3Þ Nmi ¼ 0 Li Nvhi being Li the area coordinates and 1 1 Nuhi ¼ Li ðbm Lj À bj Lm Þ. Nvhi ¼ Li ðcm Lj À cj Lm Þ. j. which is written in the following b way: ue ¼ ½ uzi bi hxi hyi T ði ¼ 1. ij l2 jm lij ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 2 x2 þ yij .F. by 2 3 1 m 0 Eh Eh3 5 Dm ¼ D. j. xij ¼ xi À xj . 3Þ ð27Þ bi XðeÞ XðeÞ where XðeÞ is the element domain. 3Þ The linear stiﬀness matrix at element level due to membrane and bending eﬀects are given.256 P. ij ð26Þ Nxi Nyi T ði ¼ 1. m the Poisson’s ratio and E the Young’s modulus. 3Þ ð24Þ being uzi the nodal transverse displacements. yij ¼ yi À yj ri ¼ 1 2 lim À l2 . Db ¼ D. 3Þ ð20Þ and Nm is the membrane interpolation function deﬁned as follows: Li 0 Nuhi ði ¼ 1. 2.

F.22]. 3Þ Tyxi Tyyi with Txxi ¼ " Tyyi ¼ " Txyi ¼ " # Dm ð1. 3Þ # Dm ð3. 2. The global time step is usually commanded by the ﬂuid. In geometrically non-linear problems the solution of these balance equations is accomplished for each time step with an incremental iterative procedure using an updated Lagrangean formulation.x Nyi. 3Þ ð34Þ The dynamic equilibrium equations of the structural system are obtained by the space discretization of the virtual work equations.P.xy ð30Þ The non-linear geometric stiﬀness matrix is given by Z KNLi ¼ GT Ti GGi dX ði ¼ 1. 4.xx Bbi ¼ À4 Ni.M. 2Þ Á umi ð2Þ ði ¼ 1. 2. ﬂuid and structure ﬁelds have diﬀerent scales of time. Teixeira. 2. Although the use of the same time step for the ﬂuid and the .yy 2Nxi. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 257 2b 1 4 i Bmi ¼ ðeÞ 0 4X 2c i 2 0 2ci 2bi bi ðbm Lj À bj Lm Þ 5 ði.xy 2 Nxi. 2.xx Nyi. which must be solved for each time step using a numerical integration scheme.x GGi ¼ Ni.yy 2Ni. j. The resulting system of algebraic equations are solved using the gradient conjugate method with incomplete Cholesky factorization [21.R. The ﬂuid–structure interaction algorithm Commonly. 2. 3Þ Gi XðeÞ ð31Þ where Ti contains the membrane internal forces and is given by Txxi Txyi Ti ¼ ði ¼ 1.x Nxi. 3Þ Á umi ð1Þ ¼ Tyxi ð32Þ 3 X k¼1 3 X k¼1 3 X k¼1 ð33Þ while GGi is given by Ni. kÞ Á Bmi ðk. 2. 3Þ ci ðcm Lj À cj Lm Þ ðci bm þ bi cm ÞLj À ðci bj þ bi cj ÞLm 3 Nyi. 3Þ 2Nyi. m ¼ 1. with parameters d ¼ 1=2 and a ¼ 1=4.y Nxi.xy 3 ð29Þ and Ni.yy 5 ði ¼ 1.xx Nxi.y Nyi. A. In the present work the well-known Newmark method is used [16].y ði ¼ 1. 1Þ Á umi ð1Þ # Dm ð2. kÞ Á Bmi ðk. kÞ Á Bmi ðk.

structure may provide some implementation advantages.1) Compute the new mesh taken into account the structural motion. Algorithm for ﬂuid–structure interaction with subcycles. pressure and total energy using subcycles. taken into account the structural motion. velocities.2) Update the ﬂuid ﬂow variables with the new boundary conditions. Teixeira. A. must be applied to the ﬂuid domain. speciﬁc mass. accelerations and stresses. (e) Repeat steps (c) and (d) until the objectives of the simulation are reached. Therefore. (c. (d) Update the structural variables with the loads transferred by the ﬂuid.F. 3): (a) Set the initial conditions for the structure and the ﬂuid.258 P. respectively) may oﬀer substantial computational advantages. (c) Update the ﬂuid velocities.M. (c. (b) Update the structure displacements. 3. at the ﬂuid–structure interface the following condition must be satisﬁed: . Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 Fig. including an economy of CPU time due to the smaller number of time steps in the structural analysis and an economy in the information transfer. The partitioned algorithm with subcycles adopted in the present work consists in the following steps (see Fig. Kinematics boundary conditions. the procedure with subcycles of factor nSF ¼ DtS =DtF (where DtS and DtF are the time intervals adopted for the structure and the ﬂuid.R.

.

ð35Þ xnþ1 .

CF ¼ tþDt xi .

CE ði ¼ 1. For viscous ﬂuids the same velocity components are prescribed for the mesh. . Therefore. 3Þ i where xnþ1 jCF and tþDt xi jCE are the updated coordinates for the instant t þ Dt at the ﬂuid and solid i interfaces CF and CE . the ﬂuid and the structure at the interface. 2. respectively.

.

.

.

3Þ ð36Þ wnþ1 . _ ði ¼ 1. 2.

CF ¼ vnþ1 .

CF ¼ tþDt ui .

i i CE For non-viscous ﬂuids the corresponding prescribed boundary conditions are: .

.

.

.

_ wnþ1 .

CF Á ni ¼ vnþ1 .

CF Á ni ¼ tþDt ui .

3Þ i i CE ð37Þ where ni is the normal vector with respect to the interface surface at time t þ Dt. (37) is applied to each node located in the interface surface. 2. . Eq. Á ni ði ¼ 1.

Young’s modulus E ¼ 77:28 GPa and Poisson’s ratio m ¼ 0:33. is analyzed.n=0 x z v2=0. Supersonic inviscid ﬂow over a ﬂat plate In this example a supersonic inviscid ﬂow over a ﬂat plate. The density of the ﬂuid is qF ¼ 0:339 kg/m3 . width and thickness are 0. v i∞ . 4.P. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 259 5. respectively. originating displacements in the plate and disturbances in the ﬂow. After this period. General view of the ﬁnite element mesh for the ﬂuid domain.0 Fig. A. Teixeira. 4.2 m and 1. It is assumed that the pressure on the inferior face of the plate falls 0.M. . a value equal to 5.35 mm. 0.1. this pressure ρ ∞ . as shown in Fig. (6). The plate length.R. Numerical applications 5. Geometry and boundary conditions in the ﬂuid domain for the example of a supersonic inviscid ﬂow over a ﬂat plate. which is clamped on both ends. while the plate has the following properties: speciﬁc mass qE ¼ 2710 kg/m3 . Fig. 5. In this problem. deﬁned in Eq. Initially the plate is subject to the same pressure on both sides.0 y v. ε ∞ v2=0.0 v3=0.5 m.F.1% instantaneously and remains in this condition for 4 ls.0 was adopted for CC.

Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 displacement (m) in x=0.02 and 2.0 and by Rifai et al.0.1 Fig.0015 -0.02 0.0005 -0.08 0.0015 -0. A. . Displacements of the plate in x ¼ 0:35 m along the time. [4] for Mach ¼ 1.001 -0.002 Mach = 1.0005 0 -0.F.260 P.9. 2.0005 -0.08 0. Comparison of the displacements in x ¼ 0:35 m obtained by the present work for Mach ¼ 2.002 0. displacement (m) in x=0.0015 0. 7. 1999 0 0.0005 0 -0. 2.06 0.04 time (s) 0. Teixeira.1 Fig.0015 0.M.05 0 0.02 0.05.0 Mach = 2. 6.02 Mach = 2.001 0.0 Rifai et al.002 0.R.06 0.98.002 Mach = 2.35m 0. for Mach ¼ 1.001 0.35m 0.001 -0..04 time (s) 0.9 Mach = 2.

A general view of the mesh is shown in Fig. while in the plate are imposed the following conditions: u ¼ v ¼ w ¼ hx ¼ hy ¼ hz ¼ 0:0 in the clamped ends and w ¼ hx ¼ hy ¼ 0:0 in the plane of symmetry xy. 0.0 at t ¼ 0:07 s. 8. The domain discretization is accomplished such that the ﬂuid tetrahedral faces adjacent to the plate are coincident with the triangles belonging to the structure.P. Pressure distribution for Mach ¼ 2.F.R. The boundary conditions imposed to the ﬂuid are shown in Fig. 13303 nodes and 38915 tetrahedral elements for the mesh of the ﬂuid domain and 506 nodes and 508 triangular elements for the structural mesh are used. Fig. The solution of the linear aeroelastic problem indicates a limit of stability with a critical Mach number equal to 2. This inviscid ﬂow has a two-dimensional behavior. 4. only one layer of elements is adopted to discretize the domain in the direction of the axis z. above this value.1 s. 9.0 at t ¼ 0:03.M. Teixeira. transverse to the ﬂow. 5. A. continuous growth of oscillations amplitudes are observed and instability of the plate occurs. although this fact would not be necessary for the solution scheme.0 using the piston theory [23].07 and 0. . Fig. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 261 returns to its initial value of 28 kPa. Conﬁgurations of the clamped plate for Mach ¼ 2.

02 0.262 P. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 In a ﬁrst analysis.005 -0. 2. Comparison of the displacements in x ¼ 0:35 m between the geometrically linear and non-linear solutions with Mach ¼ 2. simulations are accomplished with Mach numbers around the critical value predicted by the analytical solution using the piston theory [22].08 0. Fig. 2.005 0 -0.05.02 0.R.1 Fig. Description of the problem to study the interaction between air ﬂow and a ﬂexible membrane. A. Results of the displacement of the plate in x ¼ 0:35 m along the time are shown in Fig. 11.015 -0.3.04 time (s) 0. 10.01 -0.35m 0. These results were obtained using to analyze the plate time steps equal to 1.015 0.01 0. 6 for Mach numbers ¼ 1.M. Teixeira.0.02 Linear Non linear 0 0.F.02 and 2.8 · 10À7 s for displacement (m) in x=0. .06 0.9.

although a little discrepancy stays among these results.0. E Poisson’s ratio.9 and 1. m Speciﬁc mass. This phenomenon increases the eﬀective stiﬀness of the plate. It is observed that the critical Mach number obtained here is practically equal to the value predicted by the solution using the piston theory (Mach ¼ 2.3 and a time step Dt ¼ 1:6 Â 10À7 s. modifying the behaviour and the response of the system. 9 presents the plate conﬁgurations and values of vertical displacements at t ¼ 0:03.0 at the instant t ¼ 0:07 s is shown in Fig. 10. Fig. C1 Kinematic viscosity. the amplitudes are very close.21 kg/m3 Fig. 0.0 1000 kg/m3 8 2 Air properties Sound speed. [4] (in this work a critical Mach number equal to 1. In Fig. A comparison between the linear and the non-linear behaviour of the plate is performed for Mach number ¼ 2. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 263 Mach ¼ 1.M. while the geometrically non-linear solution presents limited displacement amplitudes.P. (b) Detail of the region close to the membrane. 7 these results are compared with those obtained by Rifai et al.9 · 10À6 Pa s 1.02 and 2.07 and 0.R. .333 · 10 N/m 0. whose displacements in x ¼ 0:35 m are shown in Fig.0). 12. The diﬀerence between the two solutions is attributed to the coupling between membrane and bending eﬀects in the panel when non-linear elasticity due to ﬁnite displacements is considered. 2. It is noticed that. l Speciﬁc mass. (a) General view. qF Value 345 m/s 17. qE Value 3. Finite element mesh.F. as well as the solution based in the piston theory [22]. Table 1 Air and membrane properties Membrane properties Young’s modulus.05. 8. Teixeira.98 was found). A. The pressure distribution in the domain for a Mach number ¼ 2.75 · 10À7 s for Mach ¼ 2. presents an exponential growth of the oscillations. The geometrically linear solution.1 s.

20. (e) 10.R. A. . 13.5 s and (f) 12. (b) 3.0 s.M. While the complete algorithm represents 45. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 As the structure of this example presents relatively small displacements.74%.5 s. The speed-up obtained with the simpliﬁed algorithm in relation to the complete algorithm is 1.0 s. using the complete and simpliﬁed mesh movement algorithms. It is obtained the same results for the displacements along the time.83.0 s. Fig. Teixeira. the simpliﬁed algorithm represents only 0. (d) 9.82% of the total CPU time. The reason of this result is the diﬀerence of computational cost that the mesh movement algorithm represents with respect to the total CPU time. in simulations with Mach ¼ 2.3.0 s.264 P.F. the analysis may be carried out using the simpliﬁed mesh movement algorithm described previously in Section 2. (c) 6. even with the fall of Mﬂops (from 888 to 670 in a CRAY T-94 computer). Pressure distribution at the instants: (a) 1.

Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 265 5. Teixeira.5 s and (f) 12. Fig.F.0 s.0 s.0 s. (d) 9. and is clamped at both ends. which is a function of the distance with respect to the ground level. respectively. respectively. A. At the external boundary a velocity proﬁle. Air ﬂow past an inﬂated membrane The interaction between air ﬂow (considered as an incompressible ﬂow) and a ﬂexible membrane is analyzed. (c) 6. (e) 10.M. The external boundary of the ﬂuid domain is a semi-cylinder with radius R and width L in the perpendicular direction to the plane where the ﬂow take place equal to 200 and 1 m. 11.2. is prescribed.0 mm. 14. This velocity is referred to the velocity at 10 m above the ground level. The membrane has a semi-cylindrical format with diameter d and thickness h equal to 20 m and 3. (b) 3.P. The problem is described in Fig.5 s. Velocity vectors at the instants: (a) 1.R.0 s. .

5 s. A Rayleigh viscous damping is adopted. 200 m above the ground level.5 s and (f) 12. a damping matrix is included to analyze the structure.0 s.M.266 P.F. . (c) 6. A. The internal pressure p0 which keeps the membrane inﬂated.0 s. Mesh conﬁgurations in the ﬂuid domain at: (a) 1. A reference pressure p ¼ 0 is prescribed in the point located in the external boundary condition.R. Due to the existence of air inside the space covered by the membrane. Teixeira. The air and membrane properties are given in Table 1. 11. (e) 10.0 s.0 s. is taken equal to 60% of the air stagnation pressure at a velocity of 28 m/s (p0 ¼ 285:0 Pa). Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 which varies with time as shown in Fig. which means that C ¼ aM þ bK ð38Þ Fig. 15. (b) 3. (d) 9.

mass and stiﬀness matrices. The eddy viscosity is given by the following expression: sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 1 ovi ovj ovi ovj 2 : ð39Þ þ þ lT ¼ ðKlÞ 2 oxj oxi oxj oxi where K ¼ 0:41 is the Von Krmn constant and l is the shortest distance between the point a a where lT will be determined and the closest wall to this point. For this case. As Reynolds number in this problem is relatively high (Re ¼ 1:9 Â 107 ). respectively. Although this case is essentially a two-dimensional problem and beam elements for the structure may be used. This model was also employed by Mittal and Tezduyar [25]. Considering a linear behaviour. a simple algebraic turbulence model is used. Pressure distributions.R. as indicated in Fig. a three-dimensional code is employed. The Reynolds stresses are modeled using a generalization of the Prandtl mixing length hypothesis [24].P. velocity vectors and Fig. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 267 where C.M. The non-structured ﬁnite element mesh in the ﬂuid domain has 20 550 tetrahedral elements and 7097 nodes. A time interval DtF ¼ 1:25 Â 10À3 s is adopted for the ﬂuid domain. while a time step DtS ¼ 1:25 Â 10À4 s is used to analyze the membrane. respectively. Teixeira. The structural mesh has 124 nodes and 124 triangular elements (these elements are coincident with the faces of the tetrahedral elements at the ﬂuid– structure interface).F. 12. The prescribed boundary conditions on the lateral ends are w ¼ hx ¼ hy ¼ 0 for the plate and v3 ¼ 0 for the ﬂuid domain. adopting damping ratios equal to n1 ¼ 1:0% and n2 ¼ 2:0% for the ﬁrst and second modes. and consists in the addition of a eddy viscosity lT to the molecular kinematic viscosity l. . if it is determined with a reference velocity equal to 28 m/s and a reference length equal to the radius of the structure (10 m). and calculating the corresponding circular frequencies x1 and x2 the coefﬁcient a and b can be determined by the procedure described by Bathe [16]. M and K are the damping. a ¼ 0:003529 and b ¼ 0:443162 are obtained. 16. In the perpendicular direction to the ﬂow. Geometry and boundary conditions for the panel vibration induced by vortex shedding originated by a rigid ﬁxed rectangular prism. A. only one layer of elements is used. where the membrane model was built with triangular ﬂat elements and the ﬂuid domain was discretized with tetrahedral elements.

qF Kinematic viscosity. 6.35 0. 14 and 15. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 mesh conﬁgurations in the ﬂuid domain are shown in Figs. 13. m Speciﬁc mass.F. 13. The rebouncing of the membrane. is Table 2 Fluid and panel properties Properties Young’s modulus.0. .268 P. l Value 2. An overpressure on the left-hand side of the ﬁeld and an underpressure over the middle and the right-hand side of the ﬁeld are shown in Fig. 9.82 · 10À4 g/cm s Fig. C1 Speciﬁc mass. A.0 s. respectively for t ¼ 1:5. qE Sound speed. (b) Detail in the region close to the panel.0. 17.5 MN/cm2 0.1 g/cm3 34 500 cm/s 1. 3. Teixeira.5 and 12. Finite element mesh for the ﬂuid domain.0.M. 10.R. while a vortex is being generated downstream of the structure.18 · 10À3 g/cm3 1. E Poisson’s ratio. (a) General view.

3 -0. 15 the distortion of the ﬁnite element mesh at diﬀerent times and a good performance of the mesh movement algorithm was obtained. (a) Displacements of the panel at the end. Comparison of results obtained in this work and those obtained by Wall and Ramm [17].R. 14. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 269 shown in Fig.5 0 -0. 14 at ﬁrst 3 s.P.3 0. the membrane moves again to the right pushed by the air ﬂow and the vortex formation downstream.5 -1 -1.1 -0.2 displacement (cm) 0.5 1 displacement (cm) 0.F. 1998 0.5 0. (b) Displacements of the panel at the mid span. A. nearly steady conditions are attained.2 -0. at a constant free-stream velocity. When the free stream velocity increases from v10 ¼ 14 to 28 m/s (t ¼ 6–9 s). Present work Wall and Ramm. Within the subsequent 3 s.1 0 -0.5 0 1 tempo (s) 2 3 (a) time (s) time (s) Present work Wall and Ramm.M. behind the membrane. 1998 1. It is observed in Fig.5 0 1 tempo (s) 2 3 (b) Fig.4 -0.4 0. Following this initial phase the free-stream air velocity remains constant and the periodic development and detachment of vortices in correspondence with the membrane structure movement is indicated in Fig. . 18. Teixeira. becomes pronounced.

Panel vibration induced by vortex shedding originated by a ﬁxed rectangular prism A ﬂexible panel is clamped in a ﬁxed rigid rectangular prism.F. A. 19. pressure distributions and velocity vectors here show vortices generated downstream of the structure that was not well captured by the above mentioned reference. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 Membrane conﬁgurations obtained in the present work are very similar to those presented by Argyris et al. However. 5. 16 using Fig.M. Mesh conﬁgurations at (a) t ¼ 3:765 s and (b) t ¼ 3:85899 s.R.3. . This problem is described in Fig. probably because the ﬁnite element mesh was poorly reﬁned (taking into account the characteristics of this problem). [26]. Teixeira. which generates vortex shedding inducing vibrations on the deformable structure.270 P.

A non-structured mesh with 19198 tetrahedral elements and 6544 nodes. . The boundary conditions on the lateral ends are w ¼ hx ¼ hy ¼ 0 for the plate and v3 ¼ 0 for the ﬂuid domain. Pressure distributions at (a) t ¼ 3:765 s and (b) t ¼ 3:85899 s.M. is used for the ﬂuid domain and is shown in Fig. 20. a three-dimensional code is used. where tetrahedral elements are employed for the ﬂuid domain and ﬂat plate elements for the ﬂexible panel. The ﬂuid is considered as slightly compressible and Re ¼ 332.P. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 271 dimensionless values. Although this case is essentially a two-dimensional problem. The ﬂuid– structure interaction takes place at both sides of the panel (it means that there are two ﬂuid– structure interfaces). A. with only one layer of elements in the perpendicular direction to the ﬂow. Teixeira.F. 17.R. Bearman [27] performed a detailed experimental study and clariﬁed the various regimes of the ﬂow encountered by varying the splitter plate length for range of Reynolds number. while the structural mesh has 84 triangular plate elements and 84 nodes. Fluid and panel properties are given in Table 2. Fig.

31(1):148–53.R. The diﬀerences between the dynamic responses of a linear and a non-linear system were studied in the example of a supersonic inviscid ﬂow acting on a deformable ﬂat plate. AIAA J 1993. A monolithical ﬂuid–structure interaction algorithm applied to the piston problem. The complete scheme has much more accuracy. Reasons of these diﬀerences are very diﬃcult to establish because both works use diﬀerent schemes. Casadei F. These authors use a two-dimensional code.F. Displacement at the free and at the mid span are shown in Fig. Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian multicomponent compressible ﬂow with ﬂuid–structure interaction. The method of mesh movement adopted here was shown to be eﬃcient and the complete and simpliﬁed algorithms were tested. disadvantage that can be avoided using the simpliﬁed scheme. Some discrepancies can be observed between the results of the present work and those obtained by Wall and Ramm [28]. however it requires a considerable CPU time. [2] Blom FJ.M. diﬀerent meshes and the structure was modeled with beam elements.8589 s are shown in Fig. and are compared with those obtained by Wall and Ramm [28]. But. the precision of the results are reduced and the number of iterations to obtain the convergence of the solution of the equilibrium equations of the structure increases. It was also veriﬁed that using procedures with subcycles.3 · 10À5 s/Dt node have been obtained. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1997. Finally. A. 19 and Fig. Speeds going from 670 to 888 Mﬂops in a Cray T94 computer and with a CPU time of the order of 1. it was also observed that the decrease in computer processing time may become expressive when a non-structured mesh with very diﬀerent size of elements are used. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank CNPq and CAPES for the ﬁnancial support. [3] Soria A. respectively.25:1263–84. Teixeira. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 Simulation of the dynamic behaviour of the panel was carried out using a time interval Dt ¼ 3:0 Â 10À5 s.167:369–91. the good performance of the vectorized algorithms was veriﬁed.2–2. which has reasonable precision for problems with small displacements. Direct solution of two-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations for static aeroelasticity problems. whereas in the present work thin plate elements were used. . Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998. 6. The potential of the method was shown through several examples of compressible and slightly compressible ﬂows acting on ﬂexible structures (plates and shells) and good results were obtained. 20. References [1] Felker FF. 18. Conclusions A partitioned algorithm for the solution of ﬂuid–structure interaction problems using a twostep Taylor–Galerkin method for the ﬂuid in the ALE formulation and the Newmark implicit scheme for the solution of the structural dynamic equations is presented in this work. Mesh conﬁgurations and pressure distributions at t ¼ 3:765 and 3.272 P.

An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian computing method for all ﬂow speeds. Geometric non-linear analysis of space shell structures using generalized conforming ﬂat shell elements––for space shell structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998. p. Lagrangian Eulerian ﬁnite element formulation for incompressible viscous ﬂows. Um L. Awruch AM. [6] Cebral JR. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1989. Halleux JP.26:2135–59. [28] Wall WA. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1995. 6.29:329–49. J Fluid Mech 1965.174:393–417.. Math Comput 1980. Morton KW. Investigation of the ﬂow behind a two dimensional model with a blunt trailing edge and ﬁtted with splitter plates. 1998. [27] Bearman PW.68:259–310.P. [8] Zienkiewicz OC.14:227–53. 1991. [25] Mittal S. [26] Argyris J et al. New York: McGraw-Hill. [15] Zhang Q. Finite element analysis ﬂuid dynamic. T a pamsa qei. editor. [19] Richtmeyer RD. Three-dimensional simulation of high compressible ﬂows using a multi-time-step integration technique with subcycles.35:687–92. Multiphysics simulation of ﬂow-induced vibrations and aeroelasticity on parallel computing platforms.72:305–50.34:473–97. Conservative load projection and tracking for ﬂuid–structure problems. Van der Vorst HA.21:289–362. [16] Bathe K. Barcelona: CIMNE. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 1985.21:807–35. [14] Liu WK. [23] Dowell EH. [22] Meijerink JA.14:941–57. J Comp Phys 1981. [20] Peraire J et al. Appl Math Modell 2001. Chang H. Belytschko T.157:95–114. Liu WK. [17] Chung TJ. Commun Numer Methods Eng 1998. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1999. vol. LeTallec P. Cook JL. L€nher R. 2. An incomplete factorization technique for positive deﬁnite linear systems. Teixeira. Maman N. Diﬀerence methods for initial value problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1981. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.44:134–55. 1967. Aeroelasticity of plates and shells. J Comput Phys 1974. Lesoinne M. In: Idelshon S. [24] Schlichting H. [7] Farhat C. [18] Zienkiewicz OC.33:689–723. [13] Benson DJ. [10] Hirt CW.F. Morgan KO. Awruch / Computers & Fluids 34 (2005) 249–273 273 [4] Rifai SM et al. Guidelines of the usage of incomplete decomposition in solving sets of linear equations as they occur in practical problems. 1968. Chen JS. The Netherlands: Noordhof Int. In: Gallagher R. optimal discretization and application to aeroelasticity. Mixed explicit/implicit time integration of coupled aeroelastic problems: threeﬁeld formulation. High speed compressible ﬂow and other advection-dominated o problems of ﬂuid dynamics. Tezduyar TE. Lesoinne M. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1995. 1975. [9] Teixeira PRF. New York: Interscience. A.R. [12] Donea J. [21] Monteuﬀel TA. Zimmerman TK. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1988. Wenqi K. Peraire J. 1988.M. Comput Mech. Arbitrary Lagrangean–Eulerian Petrov–Galerkin ﬁnite elements for non-linear continua. Parallel ﬁnite element simulation of 3D incompressible ﬂows: Fluid–structure interactions. Boundary-layer theory. USA: Prentice Hall. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1988.25/7:613–27. editors. AIAA J o 1997. Ramm E. An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian ﬁnite element method for transient dynamic ﬂuid–structure interactions.. Finite elements in ﬂuids. et al. vol. Fluid–structure interaction based upon a stabilized (ALE) ﬁnite element method. . Load and motion transfer algorithms for ﬂuid/structure interaction problems with non-matching discrete interfaces: momentum and energy conservation. [11] Hughes TJR. NJ. 1978. Leyden. The ﬁnite element method solid and ﬂuid mechanics dynamics and nonlinearity. geometric conservation and distributed solution. Taylor RL. 41–8. L€hner R. Englewood Cliﬀs. An eﬃcient accurate simple ALE method for non-linear ﬁnite element programs. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1982. Finite element Euler computations in three dimensions. 4th ed. Giuliani S.21:933–53. Publ. Finite element procedures. Amdsen AA. 1996. New York: McGraw-Hill.21:241–55. [5] Farhat C.