You are on page 1of 6

A FEASIBILTY STUDY OF EXTRACTING SYSTEM MODEL FROM FEM MODEL BY USING ANSYS© AND MATLAB©

S.M. Khot1, Nitesh P. Yelve2, Ramya Iyer3, Amar Kamat3 1 Assistant Professor, 2 Lecturer, 3Undergraduate Students Mechanical Engineering Department, Fr. C. Rodrigues Institute of Technology, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, India Email address: smkhot66@yahoo.co.in, niteshpy@yahoo.co.in, ramyaiyer22@yahoo.co.in ABSTRACT In many applications noise and vibrations are not desired. Hence control of noise and vibrations is required. This may be achieved by active vibration control using the concept of smart structures. A smart structure is an integrated system of sensors, actuators and controller. To design the controller, mathematical model of the system is required. However, it may not be possible to construct the model of complex structures theoretically, like trusses or frames for instance. The simplification of modelling is done by using commercially available softwares particularly ANSYS© and MATLAB© for extracting the mathematical model of dynamic system by using input-output response. The selection of input and output locations on complicated system may be a challenging job. The overall response of a system is summation of responses of individual modes. In full model all the modes are considered whereas in reduced model some of the insignificant modes are truncated. This paper deals with the formation of the full and reduced mathematical models of a system in MATLAB© from its geometrical model in ANSYS©. The system considered here is a cantilever beam. The transient responses of the full model for a unit step input are obtained in both MATLAB© and ANSYS© and found to be in close agreement. Also frequency and transient responses of the full and reduced models are plotted in MATLAB© and found to be in close agreement. Hence the feasibility of using reduced model can be explored for designing control systems with enough reliability for complicated structures, thus saving computational time and effort. KEYWORDS Active Vibration Control, ANSYS©, MATLAB©, Model Reduction NOMENCLATURE [m] [c] [k] r F r z r zp [ zn ] r Fp Mass matrix Damping matrix Stiffness matrix Force vector in physical coordinates Displacement in physical coordinates Displacement in principal coordinates Modal matrix Force vector in principal coordinates Damping coefficient of mass matrix

β ζ
n

Damping coefficient of stiffness matrix Damping coefficient in principal coordinates Number of modes of the full model

1. INTRODUCTION Vibrations are not desired in diverse areas like space and aircraft structures, satellites, cars, bridges etc. The effects of such vibrations are varied. Minor effects may include annoyance due to noise in automobiles, machines etc. Major effects are felt in areas like space structures where precise behaviour of the structure is desired and any deviation from the required behaviour may prove expensive. Hence the control of noise and vibrations has become a relevant technological challenge. Active Vibration control has been proved to be a better technology for controlling vibrations of light structures. The study carried out here is with the perspective of controlling vibrations of a cantilever beam actively. Active vibration control is the process of using smart materials for controlling vibrations. Smart materials are materials that respond with significant change in a property upon application of external driving forces. Such materials can act as sensors, which sense the disturbances in the structures, and actuators, which are capable of applying the controlling force. Examples of smart materials include piezoelectric materials, shape memory alloys, magnetostrictive materials etc. Designing a controller is one of the major aspects of active vibration control. The design of the controller basically aims to answer the question – What controlling force should be applied so as to bring the vibration level of the beam within desired limits? Before the design of the controller is attempted, it is necessary to form a mathematical model of the beam, represented in the state space form in this paper. The state space model of a vibrating body may be readily formed, given the governing differential equations for that body. However, it is often very difficult to form an analytical model of a vibrating body, due to complex boundary conditions or irregularities in the cross section of the body. For this reason, it is necessary to resort to finite element methods to form the state space models of complex structures. In this paper, an attempt is made to develop an algorithm to form the state space model of any vibrating structure in MATLAB©, after extracting the eigenvalues

α

and normalised eigenvectors resulting from the modal analysis in ANSYS©. A cantilever beam is used as a prototype to test the validity of such an algorithm. After the state space model is formed in MATLAB©, an attempt is made to reduce the model, by truncating the modes which do not contribute much to the overall response. This truncation is attempted using suitable criteria, and the results are validated by comparing the frequency and time responses of the full and reduced models. 2. MODAL ANALYSIS SPACE FORM AND THE STATE

Thus, a set of n uncoupled differential equations of the second order is obtained from the set of n coupled differential equations of the second order. These n uncoupled differential equations of the second order are converted into the state space form as 2n differential equations of the first order. The notation for equations of motion in the state space form is:

r r r & x = Ax + Bu r r r z = Cx + Du
where

(2.6a,b)

The equations of motion of a multi degree of freedom system under external forces are given by:

r r r r & [m]&& + [c]z + [k ]z = F z

(2.1)

Since [m], [c] and [k] are non-diagonal, the above expression leads to n coupled second order differential equations. To uncouple these equations, first the eigenvalue problem is solved for Eq. (2.1) and the r r r eigenvectors are obtained as Z (1) , Z ( 2) , … Z (n) . The modal matrix for the system is defined as: [zn] =

r x is the column vector representing the state of the system r y is the output matrix and r u is the input matrix A is known as the system matrix B is known as the input matrix C is known as the output matrix D is known as the direct transmission matrix

Now a general algorithm for analysing any vibrating structure using ANSYS© and MATLAB© is developed. The algorithm is summarised as follows [2]. 3. ALGORITHM FOR ANALYSING VIBRATING STRUCTURE ANY

r r r [ Z (1) Z ( 2) … Z (n) ]

(2.2) 1.

For a multi degree of freedom system with the assumption of proportional damping (that is, the damping matrix can be expressed as a linear combination of the mass and stiffness matrices as [c] = α [m] + β [k ] ), it can be proved by the expansion theorem[1] that the solution of Eq. (2.1) can be expressed as a linear combination of the normal modes as

Solve the eigenvalue problem to get the resonant frequencies and mode shapes. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors, normalised with respect to mass, are obtained as an output file from ANSYS©, after carrying out the modal analysis. Normalisation with respect to mass is done by default in ANSYS©, and it ensures that the mass matrix in the principal co-ordinates will be reduced to the identity matrix.

r r z (t ) = [ zn ]z p (t )

(2.3) 2.

where z p (t ) is known as the displacement in principal coordinates. If the normal modes are normalised with respect to mass [1], the equations of motion in the principal coordinates are of the form:

r

Use the eigenvectors to uncouple the original set of coupled equations, allowing the solution of nuncoupled single degree of freedom problems than a set of n-coupled equations. Calculate the contribution of each mode to the overall response. Taking the Laplace transform of the equations of motion in principal coordinates that the transfer function for displacement of the jth node due to a force applied at the kth node for the ith mode (considering damping) is given by [2]:

3.

&& p (t ) + 2ζ i ω i z p + ω i 2 z p (t ) = F pi (t ) & z i i i
where
r r F p (t ) = [ z n ]T F (t )

i = 1,2,…,n, (2.4)

(2.5)

is the vector of forces in principal co-ordinates.

z jki =

z nji z nki s
2

+ 2ζω i s + ω i2

=

z ji Fki

(3.1)

This is the contribution to the transfer function zjk from the ith mode. Summing up all such contributions from individual modes, we get the total transfer function as:

where, Fp = [Fp1 Fp2 … Fpn]T the force vector in principal co-ordinates.

is

z jk =

∑s

z nji z nki
2

+ 2ζω i s

+ ω i2

=

zj Fk

(3.2)

Value of C depends upon the output that we are interested in. Since we desire the values of displacement of the nodes, it can be proved that C is given by

The dc gain for each mode is defined by putting s = j0 in Eq. (3.1) For the ith mode, the dc gain = The peak gain is obtained as z nji z nki

ωi2

 z n11  0 C=   z n 21   ...

0 0 0 ...

z n12 0 z n 22 ...

0 0 0 ...

...  ...   ...   ... 

where zn11, zn12, … are the elements of zn, the modal matrix normalized with respect to mass.

peakgain = − j

dcgain 2ζ i

D is the direct transmission matrix. D = [0]. Now that a general algorithm has been formulated for vibration analysis, the complete analysis of a cantilever beam is performed. First, the modal analysis of the beam is performed in ANSYS© as follows.
4. MODAL ANALYSIS IN ANSYS©

where

α + βω i2 ζi = 2ω i

Model reduction can now be attempted by sorting the modal contributions according to their peak gains. Only the predetermined number of modes which have higher values of peak gain will be retained, while the rest will be eliminated, thus reducing the state space model of the beam. The reduced state space model may now be made in MATLAB© using the retained modes and the frequency and transient responses may be compared with that of the full model. 4. Construct state-space model using eigenvalues and eigenvectors normalized with respect to mass The matrices A, B, C and D of Eq. (2.6a,b) for a system with n modes can be written as follows [2]:
 0  2  − ω1  ... A=   ...  ...  1 − 2ζ 1ω12 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0
2 −ωn

As discussed earlier, the first step in obtaining the reduced model of the cantilever beam is to find its eigenvalues and eigenvectors normalised with respect to mass. This can be done by performing modal analysis in ANSYS©. The eigenvectors obtained by the analysis are normalised with respect to mass by default. In the following subsections, the beam parameters and modal analysis of the beam are discussed.
4.1 Beam Specifications

The beam dimensions and other parameters used are as follows: Dimensions: 2mm width length Young’s Modulus: Density: Poisson’s ratio:
4.2 Modal Analysis

  ...  ...   1  2 − 2ζ n ω n   ...

* 0.075mm thickness * 20mm 190e6 MPa 7.83e-6 kg/mm3 0.293

 0  F   p1   0  B=  F p2   ...     F pn   

A BEAM4 element is used for the analysis. It is divided into 10 elements. The UX & UY displacements and ROTX & ROTZ rotations of all nodes are constrained. All degrees of freedom of the first node are constrained. Primary degree of freedom of interest is UZ, ie, displacement along the Z axis. Modal analysis of the beam is then performed. The Block Lanczos method is used to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors normalized with respect to mass.

using the code “ext56uz.m”[2]. These eigenvalues and eigenvectors are used to identify the modes which contribute to the desired transfer function (output/input). In this case, the tip of the beam is defined as both the point of application of the input force as well as the point where the output (displacement) is measured. The tip is chosen because here, there is no node for any mode (where node is a point of zero displacement). Hence all the modes can be excited or observed at the tip. The state-space parameters, i.e., the A, B, C and D matrices of the system are formulated for the full model. Then a state-space system is defined using the “ss” function in MATLAB© with A, B, C and D as parameters. The transient response of the beam obtained from ANSYS© and MATLAB© are compared. Then using the “bode” function in MATLAB©, the frequency response for the system is plotted. Now, a reduced model state-space system is similarly constructed by truncating the insignificant modes. The first four modes sorted according to their peak gains are used (Sec 3). Frequency response of the reduced model is plotted. Transient responses (for unit step input) of the two models are then plotted using the “lsim” function in MATLAB©.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 6.1 ANSYS© Output

Fig 4.1: Modelling of Cantilever Beam in ANSYS©

The range of frequency is defined as 0 to 50000Hz. Eigenvectors correspond to the UZ dof. The damping coefficients of the mass and stiffness matrices are assumed to be α =32.3 and β =5.87e-6. The results of the analysis are written to a file with the extension .eig using the following code in ANSYS©. /output, eigvals, eig *do,i,1,nummodes set,,i /page,,,1000 prdisp *enddo Here ‘nummodes’ is the total number of modes under consideration. This file is then imported in MATLAB©. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors are then extracted as discussed in the following section. Subsequent calculations are performed in MATLAB©.
5. STATE SPACE MODEL IN MATLAB©

Ten modes are obtained in the frequency range defined in Sec 2.3. The eigenvalues obtained in Hz are 149 935 261.9 513.5 850.1 1273.5 1786.6 2393.4 3094.3 3846.3 The eigenvectors obtained are shown in Table 6.1. The columns represent the 10 modes, while the rows represent the degrees of freedom (UZ) of the 11 nodes.

The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the cantilever beam obtained from above are extracted in MATLAB©

Table 6.1 Eigenvectors Obtained form ANSYS©

Node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 0 6.9217 26.357 56.32 94.863 140.11 190.29 243.83 299.37 355.87 412.66

2 0 -38.226 -124.24 -217.12 -282.05 -294.51 -243.26 -130.84 28.898 216.14 412.67

3 0 94.156 249.57 312.22 217.14 8.1439 -195.58 -271.42 -163.03 94.324 412.84

4 0 -159.16 -311.63 -179.4 130.42 292.34 135.03 -164.24 -265.85 -21.569 413.37

Mode 5 6 0 0 222.79 -275.67 273.61 -140.71 -87.516 279.27 -288.89 46.314 0.1969 -294.97 290.38 45.814 93.813 281.9 -248.9 -126.69 -122.11 -201.97 414.54 416.58

7 0 -310.64 42.569 240.9 -265.02 -1.1798 265.95 -240.46 -52.019 256.47 -419.52

8 0 322.81 -211.43 -1.078 215.19 -302.36 211.45 3.7732 -219.02 281.89 -422.73

9 0 -308.75 304.76 -249.81 137.66 5.2466 -146.99 255.71 -308.37 274.66 -422.43

10 0 250.66 -272.96 297.96 -312.23 315.95 -308.96 291.48 -264.76 217.31 -378.92

6.2 Transient Responses of ANSYS© and MATLAB© Full Models

20 0 full model reduced model

The transient response of the beam obtained from ANSYS© and the response obtained from the state-space model formulated in MATLAB© are plotted together in Fig 6.1.
0.4 0.35 0.3 Matlab Results Ansys results

-20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
-140 1 10 10
2

10

3

10

4

10

5

Fig 6.3: Frequency Response of Reduced Model

6.4 Transient Response

The transient responses obtained for the two models are as follows:
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0.4 full model reduced model

Fig 6.1 Transient Response in ANSYS© and MATLAB©

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

It can be seen that both results closely match. Hence the state-space model from MATLAB© accurately represents the system and can be used for further calculations.
6.3 Frequency Responses Reduced Models of the Full and

The frequency responses for the full and reduced models are as shown below. The contribution of each individual mode is also shown in the two graphs.
20 full model 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 1 10

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

Fig 6.4: Transient Response of Full and Reduced Models

This graph shows that the reduced model response follows the full model’s response very closely. This is mainly because in the frequency response curve shown earlier, there is a significant difference (of about 70 dB, or 103.5 orders of magnitude) in the gains of the truncated modes and that of the most significant first mode. Also, the error in the dc gain of the reduced model is only 0.058% of the dc gain of the full model.
7. CONCLUSION
10
2 3 4 5

10

10

10

Fig 6.2: Frequency Response of Full Model

The truncated modes have low gains at low frequencies, and hence do not contribute significantly to the overall response at low frequencies.

The close agreement between the transient responses of the ANSYS© model and the MATLAB© state space full model validates the approach followed in the paper viz. forming the state space model from the ANSYS© output of eigenvalues and normalised eigenvectors. This approach may be generalised and applied to more complex structures, given the success for a cantilever beam.

The small error in the dc gain of the overall frequency response of the reduced model as compared to the full model, along with the overlapping transient responses of the full and reduced models, indicate the feasibility of reducing the model using the peak gain ranking scheme for the various modes of vibration. The feasibility of using reduced model for designing controller for active vibration control can be checked. The work in this direction is in progress.

REFERENCES

1.

2.

Rao, S.S, Mechanical Vibrations, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995, 514515, 518-519 Hatch, M.R., Vibration Simulation Using Matlab and Ansys, First Edition, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2001, 163-164, 213-216, 274-277, 625