ProductsAbaqus/StandardAbaqus/Explicit Steady-state harmonic (linear) response analysis can be performed for a coupled acoustic-structural system, such as the study of the noise level in a vehicle. The steady-state procedure is based on direct solution of the coupled complex harmonic equations, as described in Direct steady-state dynamic analysis; on a modal-based procedure, as described in Steady-state linear dynamic analysis; or on a subspace-based procedure, as described in Subspace-based steady-state dynamic analysis. Mode-based linear transient dynamic analysis is also available, as described in Modal dynamic analysis. The acoustic fluid elements can also be used with nonlinear response analysis (implicit or explicit direct integration) procedures: whether such results are useful depends on the applicability of the small pressure change assumption in the fluid. Often in coupled fluid-solid problems the fluid forces in this linear regime are high enough that nonlinear response of the structure needs to be considered. For example, a ship subjected to underwater incident wave loads due to an explosion may experience plastic deformation or large motions of internal machinery may occur. The acoustic medium in Abaqus may have velocity-dependent dissipation, caused by fluid viscosity or by flow within a resistive porous matrix material. In addition, rather general boundary conditions are provided for the acoustic medium, including impedance, or “reactive,” boundaries. The possible conditions at the surface of the acoustic medium are:
The flow resistance and the properties of the absorbing boundaries may be functions of frequency in steady-state response analysis but are assumed to be constant in the direct integration procedure. This section defines the formulation used in these elements. Acoustic equationsThe equilibrium equation for small motions of a compressible, adiabatic fluid with velocity-dependent momentum losses is taken to be where p is the excess pressure in the fluid (the pressure in excess of any static pressure); is the spatial position of the fluid particle; is the fluid particle velocity; is the fluid particle acceleration; is the density of the fluid; is the “volumetric drag” (force per unit volume per velocity); and are i independent field variables such as temperature, humidity of air, or salinity of water on which and may depend (see Acoustic medium). The d'Alembert term has been written without convection on the assumption that there is no steady flow of the fluid. This is usually considered sufficiently accurate for steady fluid velocities up to Mach 0.1. The constitutive behavior of the fluid is assumed to be inviscid, linear, and compressible, so where is the bulk modulus of the fluid. For an acoustic medium capable of undergoing cavitation, the absolute pressure (sum of the static pressure and the excess dynamic pressure) cannot drop below the specified cavitation limit. When the absolute pressure drops to this limit value, the fluid is assumed to undergo free expansion without a corresponding drop in the dynamic pressure. The pressure would rebuild in the acoustic medium once the free expansion that took place during the cavitation is reversed sufficiently to reduce the volumetric strain to the level at the cavitation limit. The constitutive behavior for an acoustic medium capable of undergoing cavitation can be stated as where a pseudopressure , a measure of the volumetric strain, is defined as where is the fluid cavitation limit and is the initial acoustic static pressure. A total wave formulation is used for a nonlinear acoustic medium undergoing cavitation. This formulation is very similar to the scattered wave formulation presented below except that the pseudopressure, defined as the product of the bulk modulus and the compressive volumetric strain, plays the role of the material state variable instead of the acoustic excess pressure. The acoustic excess pressure is readily available from this pseudopressure subject to the cavitation condition. Physical boundary conditions in acoustic analysisAcoustic fields are strongly dependent on the conditions at the boundary of the acoustic medium. The boundary of a region of acoustic medium that obeys Equation 1 and Equation 2 can be divided into subregions S on which the following conditions are imposed:
Formulation for direct integration transient dynamicsIn Abaqus the finite element formulations are slightly different in direct integration transient and steady-state or modal analyses, primarily with regard to the treatment of the volumetric drag loss parameter and spatial variations of the constitutive parameters. To derive a symmetric system of ordinary differential equations for implicit integration, some approximations are made in the transient case that are not needed in steady state. For linear transient dynamic analysis, the modal procedure can be used and is much more efficient. To derive the partial differential equation used in direct integration transient analysis, we divide Equation 1 by , take its gradient with respect to , neglect the gradient of , and combine the result with the time derivatives of Equation 2 to obtain the equation of motion for the fluid in terms of the fluid pressure: The assumption that the gradient of is small is violated where there are discontinuities in the quantity (for example, on the boundary between two elements that have a different value). Variational statementAn equivalent weak form for the equation of motion, Equation 3, is obtained by introducing an arbitrary variational field, , and integrating over the fluid: Green's theorem allows this to be rewritten as Assuming that p is prescribed on , the equilibrium equation, Equation 1, is used on the remainder of the boundary to relate the pressure gradient to the motion of the boundary: Using this equation, the term is eliminated from Equation 4 to produce where, for convenience, the boundary “traction” term has been introduced. Except for the imposed pressure on , all the other boundary conditions described above can be formulated in terms of . This term has dimensions of acceleration; in the absence of volumetric drag this boundary traction is equal to the inward acceleration of the particles of the acoustic medium: When volumetric drag is present, the boundary traction is the normal derivative of the pressure field, divided by the true mass density: a force per unit mass of fluid. Consequently, when volumetric drag exists in a transient acoustic model, a unit of yields a lower local volumetric acceleration, due to drag losses. In direct integration transient dynamics we enforce the acoustic boundary conditions as follows:
These definitions for the boundary term, , are introduced into Equation 6 to give the final variational statement for the acoustic medium (this is the equivalent of the virtual work statement for the structure): The structural behavior is defined by the virtual work equation, where is the stress at a point in the structure, p is the pressure acting on the fluid-structural interface, is the outward normal to the structure, is the density of the material, is the mass proportional damping factor (part of the Rayleigh damping assumption for the structure), is the acceleration of a point in the structure, is the surface traction applied to the structure, is a variational displacement field, and is the strain variation that is compatible with . For simplicity in this equation all other loading terms except the fluid pressure and surface traction have been neglected: they are imposed in the usual way. The discretized finite element equationsEquation 14 and Equation 15 define the variational problem for the coupled fields and p. The problem is discretized by introducing interpolation functions: in the fluid , up to the number of pressure nodes and in the structure , up to the number of displacement degrees of freedom. In these and the following equations we assume summation over the superscripts that refer to the degrees of freedom of the discretized model. We also use the superscripts , to refer to pressure degrees of freedom in the fluid and , to refer to displacement degrees of freedom in the structure. We use a Galerkin method for the structural system; the variational field has the same form as the displacement: . For the fluid we use but with the subsequent Petrov-Galerkin substitution The new function makes the single variational equation obtained from summing Equation 14 and Equation 15 dimensionally consistent: where, for simplicity, we have introduced the following definitions: where is the strain interpolator. This equation defines the discretized model. We see that the volumetric drag-related terms are “mass-like”; i.e., proportional to the fluid element mass matrix. The term is the nodal right-hand-side term for the acoustical degree of freedom , or the applied “force” on this degree of freedom. This term is obtained by integration of the normal derivative of pressure per unit density of the acoustic medium over the surface area tributary to a boundary node. In the case of coupled systems where the forces on the structure due to the fluid— are very small compared to the rest of the structural forces—the system can be solved in a “sequentially coupled” manner. The structural equations can be solved with the term omitted; i.e., in an analysis without fluid coupling. Subsequently, the fluid equations can be solved, with imposed as a boundary condition. This two-step analysis is less expensive and advantageous for systems such as metal structures in air. Time integrationThe equations are integrated through time using the standard implicit (Abaqus/Standard) and explicit (Abaqus/Explicit) dynamic integration options. From the implicit integration operator we obtain relations between the variations of the solution variables (here represented by ) and their time derivatives: The equations of evolution of the degrees of freedom can be written for the implicit case as The linearization of this equation is where and are the corrections to the solution obtained from the Newton iteration, is the structural stiffness matrix, and is the structural damping matrix. These equations are symmetric if the constituent stiffness, damping, and mass matrices are symmetric. For explicit integration the fluid mass matrix is diagonalized in a manner similar to the treatment of structural mass. The explicit central difference procedure described in Explicit dynamic analysis is applied to the coupled system of equations. Summary of additional approximations of the direct integration transient formulationAs mentioned above, derivation of symmetric ordinary differential equations in the presence of volumetric drag requires some approximations in addition to those inherent in any finite element method. First, the spatial gradients of the ratio of volumetric drag to mass density in the fluid are neglected. This may be important in lossy, inhomogeneous acoustic media. Second, to maintain symmetry, the effect of volumetric drag on the fluid-solid boundary terms is neglected. Finally, the effect of volumetric drag on the radiation boundary conditions is approximate. If any of these effects is expected to be significant in an analysis, the user should realize that the results obtained are approximate. Formulation for steady-state response using nodal degrees of freedomThe direct-solution steady-state dynamic analysis procedure is to be preferred over the transient formulation if volumetric drag is significant. This formulation uses the nodal degrees of freedom in the solid and acoustic regions directly to form a large linear system of equations defining the coupled structural-acoustic mechanics at a single frequency. If volumetric drag effects are not significant, the mode-based procedures (see below) are preferred because of their efficiency. All model degrees of freedom and loads are assumed to be varying harmonically at an angular frequency , so we can write where is the constant complex amplitude of the variable . Thus, We begin with the equilibrium equation and use the harmonic time-derivative relations to obtain We define the complex density, , as and, thus, write The equilibrium equation is now in a form where the density is complex and the acoustic medium velocity does not enter. We divide this equation by and combine it with the second time derivative of the constitutive law, Equation 2, to obtain We have not used the assumption that the spatial gradient of is small, as was done in the transient dynamics formulation. Variational statementThe development of the variational statement parallels that for the case of transient dynamics, as though the volumetric drag were absent and the density complex. The variational statement is Integrating by parts, we have In steady state the boundary traction is defined as This expression is not the Fourier transform of the boundary traction defined above for the transient case. The steady-state definition is based on the complex density and includes the volumetric drag effect in such a way that it is always equal to the acceleration of the fluid particles. The application of boundary conditions may be slightly different for some cases in steady state due to this definition of the traction.
The final variational statement becomes This equation is formally identical to Equation 4, except for the pressure “stiffness” term, the radiation boundary conditions, and the imposed boundary traction term. Because the volumetric drag effect is contained in the complex density, the acoustic-structural boundary term in this formulation does not have the limitation that the volumetric drag must be small compared to other effects in the acoustic medium. In addition, in this formulation the applied flux on an acoustic boundary represents the inward acceleration of the acoustic medium, whether or not the volumetric drag is large. Finally, the radiation boundary conditions do not make any approximations with regard to the volumetric drag parameter. The above equation uses the complex density, . We manipulate it into a form that has real coefficients and an additional time derivative through the relations to obtain The discretized finite element equationsApplying Galerkin's principle, the finite element equations are derived as before. We arrive again at Equation 17 with the same matrices except for the damping and stiffness matrices of the acoustic elements and the surfaces that have imposed impedance conditions, which now appear as The matrix modeling loss to volumetric drag is proportional to the fluid stiffness matrix in this formulation. For steady-state harmonic response we assume that the structure undergoes small harmonic vibrations, identified by the prefix , about a deformed, stressed base state, which is identified by the subscript . Hence, the total stress can be written in the form where is the stress in the base state; is the elasticity matrix for the material; is the stiffness proportional damping factor chosen for the material (to give the stiffness proportional contribution to the Rayleigh damping, thus introducing the viscous part of the material behavior); and, from the discretization assumption, To solve the steady-state problem, we assume that the governing equations are satisfied in the base state, and we linearize these equations in terms of the harmonic oscillations. For the internal force vector this yields and Equation 17 can be rewritten, using the time-harmonic relations, as with (this stiffness includes the initial stress matrix, so “stress stiffening” and “load stiffness” effects associated with the base state stress and loads are included) and We have also added the “global” parts of the “structural damping” terms and to the equation. These damping terms model finite energy loss in the low-frequency limit in steady-state dynamics—see Direct steady-state dynamic analysis and Subspace-based steady-state dynamic analysis. It should be noted that the acoustic “structural damping” operator inherits the frequency dependence of the acoustic stiffness matrix caused by volumetric drag. We assume that the loads and (because of linearity) the response are harmonic; hence, we can write and where , , , and are the real and imaginary parts of the amplitudes of the response; and are the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude of the force applied to the structure; and are the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude of the acoustic traction (dimensions of volumetric acceleration) applied to the fluid; and is the circular frequency. We substitute these equations into Equation 23 and use the time-harmonic form of Equation 16, , which yields the coupled complex linear equation system where and If is symmetric, Equation 24 is symmetric. The system may be quite large, because the real and imaginary parts of the structural degrees of freedom and of the pressure in the fluid all appear in the system. This set of equations is solved for each frequency requested in the direct-solution steady-state dynamics procedure. If damping is absent, the user can specify that only the real matrix equation should be factored in the analysis. Nonzero volumetric drag values () for the acoustic medium and nonzero values for the impedances represent damping. As mentioned above for the transient case, the coupled system can be split into an uncoupled structural analysis and an acoustic analysis driven by the structural response, provided the fluid forces on the structure are small. Formulation for eigenvalue extraction and mode-based proceduresFrom the discretized equation, Equation 17, we can write the frequency domain problem as where is a natural (as opposed to forced response) frequency. The indices have been suppressed for brevity. This system is due to Zienkiewicz and Newton (1969) and is used in Abaqus as the starting point for mode-based procedures. Suppressing any damping terms, forcing, and any terms associated with a reactive surface, Interpreted as a linear eigenvalue problem (where is the eigenvalue), this equation cannot be solved directly in Abaqus due to the unsymmetric stiffness and mass matrices. However, it can be shown that these equations do yield real-valued natural frequencies and modes, suggesting that they can be rewritten in symmetric forms. Application of the modes of Equation 25 to form a reduced system (see below) must be done with some caution, since this unsymmetric system has distinct left and right eigenvector sets. In particular, the “singular modes” associated with zero frequency are of interest because they describe the low-frequency limiting behavior of the system (or the “rigid-body motion” in a kinematic sense) and are, therefore, essential for the construction of an accurate projected frequency domain operator. The right singular modes of the coupled system are In other words, there is a “structural” singular right mode associated with the kernel of and an “acoustic” singular right mode associated with the kernel of . The left singular modes are solutions to and are The right acoustic and left structural singular modes are coupled, with nontrivial fields on the structural and acoustic domains. These coupled singular modes are a consequence of the stiffness term in Equation 25, and they must be computed if this system is to be projected. An alternative frequency domain formulation, due to Everstine (1981), involves the substitution and results in a formally symmetric system: The corresponding coupled eigenproblem is quadratic, but the singular mode structure of this system is much simpler—the left and right pairs are identical due to symmetry, and the singular modes are uncoupled due to the diagonal structure of the stiffness matrix. The modes are simply Lanczos formulationIntroducing an auxiliary variable, , augmenting the system of equations with , and manipulating the equations yields This augmented system of equations is due to Ohayon and is used only for Lanczos eigenvalue extraction. The auxiliary variable is internal to Abaqus/Standard and is not available for output. If is singular, orthogonalization against the singular acoustic modes is done in the Lanczos eigensolver. The left and right eigenvectors for the original system of equations, Equation 25, can be constructed from the Lanczos solution. As mentioned above, the singular modes are essential for construction of an accurate projected operator. It is easy to verify that the Lanczos system has the following structural singular mode: However, if we seek nontrivial acoustic singular modes (i.e., , such that ), we easily find that but also that If a nontrivial exists, is singular; therefore, for a solution to exist, the right-hand-side must be orthogonal to the null space of . But we quickly observe that Consequently, to find an acoustic singular mode using the Lanczos formulation, we construct a perturbation “force” such that The Lanczos formulation will yield the nontrivial singular acoustic mode The left and right eigenvectors of the original, unsymmetric system Equation 25, including the singular modes, can be constructed from the Lanczos solutions : where For any nonsingular acoustic mode , , where is the circular eigenfrequency. The left and right eigenvector subspaces are then used to compute modal quantities (generalized mass, participation factors, and effective mass) and to project the mass, stiffness, and damping matrices in mode-based procedures (such as subspace-based steady-state dynamic analysis or transient modal dynamic analysis) to obtain a reduced system of equations. Most of these computations are conducted in a very similar fashion to the way they are carried out in the pure structural problem and will not be discussed here. In addition, for each mode an acoustic fraction of the generalized mass is computed as the ratio between acoustic contributions to the generalized mass and to the total generalized mass. The only exception worth a brief discussion is the choice for the calculation of the acoustic participation factors and effective masses, as follows. First, a “rigid body” acoustic mode, , analogous to the rigid body modes for the structural problem outlined in Variables associated with the natural modes of a model, is chosen to be a constant pressure field of unity. A total “acoustic mass” is then defined as . Left and right acoustic participation factors are defined as and Abaqus/Standard will then report the acoustic participation factor computed as and an acoustic effective mass computed as The scaling by in the equation for is arbitrary. However, this scaling ensures that when all eigenmodes are extracted, the sum of all acoustic effective masses is 1.0 (minus the contributions from nodes constrained in the acoustic degree of freedom). Frequency-domain solution using projections onto modal spacesDistinct modal space projection methods for coupled forced structural-acoustic response exist in Abaqus for the following cases: using coupled modes from Lanczos, using uncoupled modes from Lanczos, and using uncoupled modes from Abaqus/AMS. In the Lanczos mode cases the forced response is computed using the Zienkiewicz-Newton equation, with separate right and left projection operators. In the Abaqus/AMS uncoupled mode case the Everstine equation is used for the forced response and the right and left projection operators are identical. This case is described in more detail below. Using uncoupled Abaqus/AMS modesIn this case the Everstine equation is used for the coupled forced response problem and modes are computed from decoupled structural and acoustic Abaqus/AMS runs. In nodal degrees of freedom the forced response is governed by where and here are the complete assembled damping matrices for the structure and fluid, including viscous and structural damping, as well as boundary impedance effects. Using transformations constructed from the acoustic and structural modes, and representations of the structural and acoustic fields in the spaces spanned by these modes, we obtain The terms in this matrix correspond to the nodal degree-of-freedom operators, projected onto the modal spaces. The damping and coupling matrices in modal coordinates are full and unsymmetric. Volumetric drag and fluid viscosityThe medium supporting acoustic waves may be flowing through a porous matrix, such as fiberglass used for sound deadening. In this case the parameter is the flow resistance, the pressure drop required to force a unit flow through the porous matrix. A propagating plane wave with nominal particle velocity loses energy at a rate Fluids also exhibit momentum losses without a porous matrix resistive medium through coefficients of shear viscosity and bulk viscosity . These are proportionality constants between components of the stress and spatial derivatives of the shear strain rate and volumetric strain rate, respectively. In fluid mechanics the shear viscosity term is usually more important than the bulk term ; however, acoustics is the study of volumetrically straining flows, so both constants can be important. The linearized Navier-Stokes equations for adiabatic perturbations about a base state can be expressed in terms of the pressure field alone (Morse and Ingard, 1968): In steady state this linearized equation can be written in the form of Equation 19, with so that the viscosity effects can be modeled as a volumetric drag parameter with the value If the combined viscosity effects are small, so we can write In steady-state form where is the forcing frequency. This leads to the following analogy between viscous fluid losses and volumetric drag or flow resistance: with density constant with respect to frequency. The energy loss rate for a propagating plane wave in this linearized, adiabatic, small-viscosity case is Acoustic output quantitiesSeveral secondary quantities are useful in acoustic analysis, derived from the fundamental acoustic pressure field variable. In steady-state dynamics the acoustic particle velocity at any field point is The acoustic intensity vector, a measure of the rate of flow of energy at a point, is In an acoustic medium the stress tensor is simply the acoustic pressure times the identity tensor, , so this expression simplifies to The hats denote complex conjugation. The real part of the intensity is referred to as the “active intensity,” and the imaginary part is the “reactive intensity.” Acoustic contribution factorsAcoustic contribution factors help the user interpret the behavior of a coupled structural-acoustic system by showing the relationship between the acoustic pressure and either specific structural surfaces or specific structural modes. In the literature they are sometimes referred to as acoustic “participation factors,” but since this term is used in Abaqus to describe characteristics of modes (see Variables associated with the natural modes of a model), a different nomenclature is chosen here. First, consider an acoustic medium in contact with a structure undergoing time-harmonic vibration. The structure exerts a traction on the fluid at each point on the wetted surface, causing harmonic pressure in the acoustic medium. In a given solution to a coupled forced response problem, it is sometimes useful to separate the pressure into constituent parts, each due to the vibration of a portion of the wetted surface. For example, in an automotive acoustic problem it may be useful to determine the parts of the acoustic pressure field due to the windows, floor, and other panels separately. The pressure field generated by some given structural vibration acting only on structural surface , with all other parts of the wetted surface held fixed, is defined as the acoustic contribution factor of that surface: where and is the coupling matrix associated with surface partition . can correspond to a group of disjoint surfaces (for example, all the window glass in an automobile) or to a single node. Because the natural boundary condition in Abaqus for acoustic elements is a rigid wall, Equation 34 corresponds physically to an acoustic field coupled to the structure only at surface , with all other bounding surfaces rigid. For example, if a single panel's acoustic contribution is separated from the total acoustic pressure, the coupled system of equations for the structural acoustic problem can be written where . This equation makes it clear that the panel's acoustic contribution factor depends on the solution to the specific coupled harmonic forced response problem. However, it is more efficient to solve for and instead and then solve for using Equation 34. When subspace-based steady-state dynamics or mode-based steady-state dynamics is used, and are projected; in turn, these projected matrices depend on whether the preceding eigenanalysis step was coupled or uncoupled. For the uncoupled case separate modal transformations and correspond to the acoustic and structural modes, and The transformed equation defining becomes The contribution of a specific mode to the acoustic pressure of a forced harmonic coupled system may be of interest as well. Physically, a modal acoustic contribution factor is the part of the acoustic field in a forced response problem due to the action of one structural (or coupled) mode on the acoustic fluid. The calculation of a modal acoustic contribution factor depends on whether the modes in question are uncoupled or coupled structural-acoustic modes. However, its definition is analogous to the surface or panel acoustic contribution factor: it is the acoustic response due to forcing on the wetted surface due only to a single mode of interest, with all other modes held fixed. Starting from Equation 34, but using the entire wetted surface coupling operator , where is the structural response of the coupled problem, restricted to mode . If coupled mode transformations are used, this equation becomes If there is no acoustic force in the coupled system of interest and no damping or boundary impedances in the acoustic fluid, this equation is simply the Jth row of the acoustic part of the projected coupled harmonic forced response problem. Consequently, the modal acoustic contribution due to mode J is simply equal to the Jth modal coefficient of the solution to the coupled problem, , times the Jth column of the pressure partition of the modal transformation, . Thus, no additional solution is required to obtain modal acoustic contribution factors when using coupled mode projections if acoustic forcing is absent. If acoustic forcing or damping is present in the coupled response problem defining , Equation 37 must be solved after the solution is obtained. When uncoupled modes are used in the projection for the solution of a coupled system, there is no direct relationship between acoustic and structural mode shapes. Therefore, application of the uncoupled modal transformations to the harmonic forced response problem does not produce the same trivial result as in the coupled mode case. The system resulting from the application of the separate uncoupled mode transformations and to Equation 36 must be solved for the modal coefficients corresponding to forcing via structural mode : Impedance and admittance at fluid boundariesEquation 11 (or alternatively Equation 9) can be written in a complex admittance form for steady-state analysis: where we define The term is the complex admittance of the boundary, and is the corresponding complex impedance. Thus, a required complex impedance or admittance value can be entered for a given frequency by fitting data to the parameters and using Equation 39. For absorption of plane waves in an infinite medium with volumetric drag, the complex impedance can be shown to be For the impedance-based nonreflective boundary condition in Abaqus/Standard, the equations above are used to determine the required constants and . They are a function of frequency if the volumetric drag is nonzero. The small-drag versions of these equations are used in the direct time integration procedures, as in Equation 46. Radiation boundary conditionsMany acoustic studies involve a vibrating structure in an infinite domain. In these cases we model a layer of the acoustic medium using finite elements, to a thickness of to a full wavelength, out to a “radiating” boundary surface. We then impose a condition on this surface to allow the acoustic waves to pass through and not reflect back into the computational domain. For radiation boundaries of simple shapes—such as planes, spheres, and the like—simple impedance boundary conditions can represent good approximations to the exact radiation conditions. In particular, we include local algebraic radiation conditions of the form where is the wave number and is the complex density (see Equation 18). f is a geometric factor related to the metric factors of the curvilinear coordinate system used on the boundary, and is a spreading loss term (see Table 1).
Comparison of Equation 41 and Equation 9 reveals that, for steady-state analysis, there exists a direct analogy to the reactive boundary equation, Equation 21, with and For transient procedures the treatment of volumetric drag in the acoustic equations and the radiation conditions necessitates an approximation. In the acoustics equation we use the boundary term Combining Equation 41 with Equation 44, expanding about , and retaining only first-order terms leads to The Fourier inverse of the steady-state form results in the transient boundary condition This expression involves independent coefficients for pressure and its first derivative in time, unlike the transient reactive boundary expression (Equation 10), which includes independent coefficients for the first and second derivatives of pressure only. Consequently, to implement this expression, we define the admittance parameters and so the boundary traction for the transient radiation boundary condition can be written The values of the parameters f and vary with the geometry of the boundary of the radiating surface of the acoustic medium. The geometries supported in Abaqus are summarized in Table 1. In the table refers to the eccentricity of the ellipse or spheroid; refers to the radius of the circle, sphere, or the semimajor axis of the ellipse or spheroid; is the vector locating the integration point on the ellipse or spheroid; is the vector locating the center of the ellipse or spheroid; and is the vector that orients the major axis. These algebraic boundary conditions are approximations to the exact impedance of a boundary radiating into an infinite exterior. The plane wave condition is the exact impedance for plane waves normally incident to a planar boundary. The spherical condition exactly annihilates the first Legendre mode of a radiating spherical surface; the circular condition is asymptotically correct for the first mode (Bayliss et al., 1982). The elliptical and prolate spheroidal conditions are based on expansions of elliptical and prolate spheroidal wave functions in the low-eccentricity limit (Grote and Keller, 1995); the prolate spheroidal condition exactly annihilates the first term of its expansion, while the elliptical condition is asymptotic. An improvement on radiation boundary conditions for plane wavesAs already pointed out, the radiation boundary conditions derived in the previous section for plane waves are actually based on the presumption that the sound wave impinges on the boundary from an orthogonal direction. But this is not always the case. Figure 1 shows a general example for plane waves in which the sound wave direction differs from the boundary normal by an angle of . Figure 1. A plane wave not normally incident to the boundary.
To consider this situation accurately, we adopt the plane-wave radiation equation used in Sandler (1998); i.e., where is the sound speed with and is the corresponding speed normal to the boundary. This exact description of the geometry is the starting point for many developments of approximate absorbing boundary conditions (see, for example, Engquist and Majda, 1977). Thus, we have Using the first-order expanding approximation to the second term in the square root in the above equation (similar to what we did to reach Equation 45), we can obtain an improved radiation boundary condition It can be found from comparison that this equation differs from Equation 46 only by a factor of for plane waves. In two dimensions the can be calculated as The normal and tangential derivatives and at the integration points can be evaluated using the corresponding element along the radiation boundary surface (see Figure 2); i.e., where are the nodal pressure values of the element. Figure 2. An element along the boundary.
The method described in this section can be used only for direct integration transient dynamics; it cannot be used with steady-state or modal response. In addition, it is available for planar, axisymmetric, and three-dimensional geometries. Finally, the method makes the equilibrium equations nonlinear, as shown in Equation 52. Although in theory the iteration process in Abaqus/Standard can solve the nonlinear equilibrium equations accurately, the use of a small half-increment residual tolerance is strongly suggested since in many cases the pressure and its related residual along the radiation boundaries are very weak relative to the other places in the modeled domain. The computation of at the integration point is based on the nodal pressures. The nodal pressures are updated using the explicit central difference procedure described in Explicit dynamic analysis. |