Scribd
Upload
226 views

FEM Vs BEM

1. FEM/IFEM methods in Actran use latest algorithms like Astley-Coyette and do not account for frequency dependence, while BEM methods in LMS/Sysnoise use older algorithms with licensed infinite elements that do introduce frequency dependence. 2. BEM has limitations including incompatible boundary conditions for different submethods, inability to model local mesh refinement or fluid heterogeneity/flow, while FEM has greater stability and flexibility to model multiple heterogeneous fluids and complex flows. 3. FEM in Actran offers a wide range of element types, more accurate physical modeling capabilities, and greater stability even for complex geometries compared to BEM which is more sensitive to geometric irregularities.

Uploaded by

Girish Bellur
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
226 views

FEM Vs BEM

1. FEM/IFEM methods in Actran use latest algorithms like Astley-Coyette and do not account for frequency dependence, while BEM methods in LMS/Sysnoise use older algorithms with licensed infinite elements that do introduce frequency dependence. 2. BEM has limitations including incompatible boundary conditions for different submethods, inability to model local mesh refinement or fluid heterogeneity/flow, while FEM has greater stability and flexibility to model multiple heterogeneous fluids and complex flows. 3. FEM in Actran offers a wide range of element types, more accurate physical modeling capabilities, and greater stability even for complex geometries compared to BEM which is more sensitive to geometric irregularities.

Uploaded by

Girish Bellur
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FEM/IFEM (ACTRAN) 1 2 Latest algorithms (Astley-Coyette) proprietary technology No frequency dependence

BEM Embedded FEM/IFEM (LMS/Sysnoise) Old fashioned algorithm Infinite Elements licensed from Lucent Technologies introduce frequency dependence in the matrices Convergence problems Limitation in the boundary condition BE is not a unique method but a set of submethods: - Direct (closed surface =interior or exterior) = fluid on one side submarines application - Indirect (exterior and interior) = fluid on both sides most applications - Coupled or uncoupled Choice prior the case is required but is often not easy. Boundary conditions are not compatible for all submethods Limitation in the geometry = local mesh refinement Only a single fluid in the whole model This fluid has to be homogeneous: - No fluid heterogeneity (no temperature gradients, no local volume absorbent) -No flow (too difficult with BE)

3 4 5

Very stable, no convergence problem No limitation in the boundary condition One single method valid for all the application

6 7 8 9

No compatibility problem in the BC No limitation in the geometry : Modeling strategy more easy with FE than BE Multiple fluids Each fluid can be heterogeneous and have a complex flow (convective effect)

10

11 12

Very rich library of elements available in Actran: -Classical fluids - Visco-thermal fluids - Volume absorbents - Poro-elastics - A wide range of solids and shells Physical modeling is richer with FE Stability: -Very stable -There is NO irregular frequencies -Matrix coefficients are built from equations involving local nodes -an irregularity in the mesh only affects the results locally -Insensitive to the complexity of the geometry -FE more stable than BE because the impedance matrix is a polynomial function of the frequency (exponential function for BE!)

Strong limitation for instance for intake and exhaust systems Stability: Not always stable, because: -Irregular frequencies: at some freq, the solution is not unique and the mathematical problem jumps to its physical inverse (interior <> exterior) -Matrix coefficients are built from integrals on the whole mesh -an irregularity in the mesh can produce a global error (error at every node of the mesh) -Sensitive to complex geometries (real difficulty to handle sharp edges, or surfaces that are close to each other,)

13

14

Performance: The volume of the model is meshed = more nodes, BUT: -The matrix to be solved is sparse, banded and symmetric -very easy to solve - CPU time per frequency is lower AND - Actran includes the Fast FRF Krylov solver (also used in Nastran) -only the CPU time for the first frequencies is significant for a wide range of frequency - FE faster than BE Mesh and Modal Preparation: -The method relies on volume finite elements (bricks, tets or mixture) - Note: the infinite elements are not actually created: they are represented as a BC applied on the outer skin - For engine radiation: FE/IE mesh = BE mesh (without refinement) + ellipsoidal surface + auto volumic mesh in between - Actran uses its own preprocessor or is integrated in Patran, Hypermesh and I-deas through preferences

Only the boundary of the model is meshed = less nodes, BUT: -The matrix to be solved is full (all the coefficients are built from an integral on the entire surface mesh) -the CPU time for assembly is high -Direct BE : the matrix is non-symmetric -Indirect BE : the matrix is symmetric but the BC imposes often a doubling of the dofs - CPU time per frequency is higher Mesh and Modal Preparation: -The method relies on surface elements of the boundary only - The surface singularities need to be highly refined

You might also like